Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/essaysdissertatiOOnewyrich 


ESSAYS  AND  DISSERTATIONS 


IN 


BIBLICAL  LITERATURE 


BY  A  SOCIETY  OF  CLERGYMEN, 


CONTAINING  CUIEFI.Y  TRANSLATIONS  OF  THJC 
WORKS  OF  GERMAN  CRITICS. 


NEW-YOKK. 

G.  &  C.  &  H.  CARVILL 


51 


1829. 


\ 


^ 

*. 


Southern  District  of  NeAV-York,  ss. 
iJE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  oh  the  18th  day  of  September,  A.  D.  182£^, 
in  the  fifty-fourth  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
G.  &  C.  &  H.  Carvill,  of  the  said  District,  have  deposited  in  this  office  the  title 
of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  Proprietors,  in  the  words  follow- 
ing, to  wit : 

"  Essays  and  Dissertations  in  Biblical  Literatui-e.  By  a  Society  of  Cler- 
gymen. Vol.  I.  Containing  chiefly  Translations  of  the  Works  of 
German  Critics."  * 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled  "  An 
Act  for  the  encouragement  of  Learning,  by>  securing  the  copies  of  Maps, 
Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the 
time  therein  mentioned."  And  also  to  an  Act,  entitled  "  An  Act,  supple- 
mentary to  an  Act,  entitled,  An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  Learning,  by 
securing  the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprie- 
tors of  such  copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned,  and  extending  the 
benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  Designing,  Engraving,  and  Etching  historical 
and  other  Prints." 

FRED.  J.  BETTS, 
CUrk  of  the  Southern  District  of  New-York. 


W.  K.  PEANf  PRINTHR. 


PREFACE. 


In  publishing  this  volume,  the  authors  beg  leave  to  accompany 
it  with  a  few  introductory  remarks. 

The  object  of  the  work  is  to  advance  the  cause  of  Biblical 
Literature,  principally  by  placing  within  the  reach  of  students 
some  treatises,  which  are  not  now  readily  accessible.  At  the 
present  time,  this  department  of  theological  science  is  receiving  a 
thorough  investigation.  Scholars,  celebrated  for  the  accuracy 
and  the  extent  of  their  erudition,  are  devoting  their  talents  to  the 
illustration  of  the  Bible,  by  cultivating  a  fundamental  acquaintance 
with  its  languages,  and  with  the  whole  circle  of  knowledge  con- 
nected with  it,  and  by  applying  to  the  subject  all  the  light,  afford- 
ed  by  historical  research  and  philosophical  investigation.  In  our 
own  country,  there  is  an  increasing  interest  in  Sacred  Literature  ; 
and  the  Clergy  of  all  denominations  are  more  and  more  impressed 
with  the  importance  of  searching  the  Scriptures,  in  order  to  as- 
certain and  defend  the  fundamental  truths  of  revelation.  Our 
Seminaries  of  theology  are  directing  the  attention  of  their  stu- 
dents,  to  the  careful  study  of  the  Bible  in  its  Original  Languages, 
and  supplying  them  with  aids,  to  prosecute  this  study  with  suc- 
cess. In  England,  several  of  our  critical  works  have  been  re- 
printed ;  a  few  productions  of  continental  scholars  have  been 
translated ;  and  some  original  publications  have  been  added  to 
^he  sacred  treasury. 


IV  rREPACE. 

But  of  all  those  who  apply  their  learning  to  the  explanation  ot' 
the  Scriptures,  not  only  the  largest  number,  but  we  must  say,  the 
clearest  in  arrangement,  and  the  most  satisfactory  in  collecting 
knowledge,  are  to  be  found  among  the  German  writers.  We  are 
well  aware,  that  there  is  a  prejudice  in  some  minds,  against  Ger- 
man divinity  and  philology  in  general,  arising  from  that  looseness 
of  interpretation,  which  has  characterized  the  modern  neological 
school.  We  would  by  no  means  vindicate  their  views  ;  but  it  is 
unreasonable  to  condemn  the  whole,  for  the  errors  of  a  part  only, 
even  if  that  part  should  be  considerable.  And  it  is  possible,  that 
the  works  of  many,  even  of  that  part,  may  contain  much,  that  is 
of  great  interest  and  value.  Is  it  wise,  then,  to  forego  the  ad* 
vantage,  to  be  derived  from  the  study  of  these  authors,  because 
some  of  their  sentiments  are  loose  and  untenable  ?  It  is  the  part 
of  prudence,  to  use  them  with  the  proper  caution ;  for  we  may 
guard  against  their  errors,  and  avail  ourselves  of  the  ample  fund 
of  learning,  which  they  are  ready  to  pour  out  before  us. 

With  these  views,  we  offer  the  following  Essays  to  the  student 
of  Sacred  Literature,  and  to  the  intelligent  Christian,  who  is  in- 
terested in  whatever  extends  a  knowledge  of  the  Bible.  With 
one  exception,  they  are  selected  from  the  works  of  able  German 
.scholars  of  the  last  half  century. 

The  biographical  sketch  of  such  a  man  as  Bochart  will  be 
read,  we  think,  with  interest,  by  all  who  appreciate  his  vast 
literary  labors,  and  regard  his  productions  as  a  storehouse  of 
learning  almost  inexhaustible.  Mich ae lis  deserves  an  honorabbe 
place,  m  the  estimation  of  all  who  have  a  due  regard  to  criticism  : 
and  his  Treatise  on  the  Use  of  the  Syriac  Language,  to  which, 
as  a  favourite  subject,  he  paid  more  than  ordinary  attention,  may 
excite  the  student  to  increase  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  by  an 
acquaintance  with  this  easy  cognate  dialect.  Eichhorn  and 
Gesenius,  the  former  of  whom  has  not  been  dead  two  years,  and 
the  latter  is  still  living,  are  too  celebrated,  to  require  a  particular 
notice.  The  Treatise  on  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
jrenerally  allowed  to  be  among  the  best,  if  not  the  very  best,  ever 


Written  ;  and  the  History  of  the  Interpretation  of  Isaiah  is  evi* 
dently  the  work  of  a  writer,  well  acquainted  with  interpreta^ 
tion,  and  able  to  form  a  judjjjment  for  himself,  in  all  cases  of  dif- 
ficulty. These  two  learned  men,  it  is  well  known,  exhibit  inade- 
quate views  of  revelation,  although  it  is  but  seldom,  hat,  in  the 
treatises  contained  in  this  volume,  any  very  objectionable  features 
are  to  be  traced.  Where  this  is  the  case,  however,  the  translators 
have  either  added  notes,  or  wholly  omitted  the  objectionable  pas- 
sages.  The  reader  is  informed  of  such  omissions,  and  of  the  ex- 
tent of  them  ;  but  they  are,  in  general,  only  a  few  lines.  With 
the  exception  of  such,  the  whole  of  the  author's  matter  is,  in  every 
case,  given  in  the  translation. 

Storr  and  Tittmann  are  both  decidedly  orthodox.  The 
former  is  already  favourably  known  among  us,  by  his  Treatise  on 
the  Historic  Sense,  which  was  translated  and  published  by  Pro- 
fessor  GiBBs,  of  the  Theological  Seminary  of  Yale  College,  and 
by  his  Biblical  Theology,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  Professor 
SoHMTTCKER,  of  the  German  Lutheran  Theological  Seminary  at 
Gettysburg.  The  author  took  a  firm  stand  against  the  accommo- 
dating  system,  as  maintained  by  Skmler  and  his  followers  ;  and 
as  a  learned  defender  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  he 
arrested  the  progress  of  naturalism,  by  the  salutary  influence  of 
his  able  writings.  His  treatises  unite  the  results  of  a  vigorous 
discrimination,  and  of  an  enlarged  view  of  scripture  truth.  He 
seems  to  bring  together  all  that  the  Scriptures  contain,  on  the 
subjects  which  he  is  investigating  ;  so  that  the  parallel  or  colla- 
teral  texts  are  either  referred  to,  or  brought  to  bear  upon  them. 
In  this  respect,  he  is  superior  to  any  author  with  whose  works 
we  are  acquainted.  '  Ttttmann  is  eminent,  in  the  same  honorable 
rank  with  Storr.  Orthodox  in  his  views  of  divine  truth,  careful 
in  his  investigations,  and  judicious  in  his  conclusions,  by  his 
Treatise  on  Gnosticism  he  has  furnished  us  with  valuable  infor- 
mation and  sound  criticism. 

Great  care  has  been  taken,  to  make  the  translations  accurate, 
and  we  trust,  that  we  have  not  often  failed  in  this  respect^  but. 


Vi  PREFACE. 

that  we  have  presented  the  meaning  of  our  authors,  in  clear  and 
intelhgible  En^ish. 

We  hope  that  our  efforts,  to  advance  the  cause  of  Biblical 
Literature,  will  meet  with  the  approbation  of  the  intelligent ;  and 
especially,  of  our  brethren  of  the  Clergy,  who  are  aware  of  the 
importance  of  an  enlightened  study  of  the  Bible.  This  must  be 
regarded  the  foundation  of  all  Christian  Theology.  If  our  expec- 
tation should  not  be  disappointed,  we  intend,  by  the  blessing  of 
God,  to  proceed  in  our  undertaking,  and  to  publish  a  volume  from 
time  to  time,  as  our  other  studies  and  avocations  may  allow  us  to 
prepare  appropriate  materials. 

New-York,  September  25th;  1829. 


CONTEXTS. 


History  of  Introductions  to  the  Scriptures,  by  William  Gsse-    Page. 
Nius ;  translated  from  the  German,  by  Samuel  H.  Turner, 
D.  D.,  Prof,  of  Bibl.  Learn,  and  Interp.  of  Script,  in  the 
General  Theological  Sem.  of  the  Prot.  Episc.  Church  in  the 
UnitedStates 1—15. 

Treatise  on  the  Authenticity  and  Canonical  Authority  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  John  Godfrey  Eich- 
HORN ;  translated  from  the  German,  by  John  Frederick 
ScHROEDER,  A.  M.,  An  Assistant  Minister  of  Trinity  Church 
in  the  City  of  New-York 17—104. 

Essay.on  the  Life  and  Writings  of  Samuel  Bochart,  by  William 
R.  Whittingham,  A.  M.,  Chaplain  and  Superintendent  of 
the  New- York  Protestannt  Episcopal  Public  School 105— 16S. 

Dissertation  on  the  meaning  of  "  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  "  in 
the  New  Testament,  by  Gottlob  Christian  Storr  ;  trans- 
lated from  the  Latin,  by  Manton  Eastburn,  M.  A.,  Rector 
of  the  Church  of  the  Ascension,  New  York 169—212. 

Dissertation  on  the  Parables  of  Christ,  by  Gottlob  Christian 
Storr  ;  translated  from  the  Latin,  by  William  R.  Whitting- 
ham, A.  M.,  Chaplain  and  Superintendent  of  the  New-York 
Protestant  Episcopal  Public  School 213—273- 

No  Traces  of  the  Gnostics  are  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment: a  Dissertation  by  C.  C.  Tittmann;  translated  from 
the  Latin,  by  Manton  Eastburn,  M.  A.,  Rector  of  the 
Church  of  the  Ascension,  New- York.  ,,.,...,.,,, 275 — 399. 


VIU  CONTENTS. 

History  of  the  Interpretation  ot  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  by  William      Page. 
Geseitius  ;  translated  from  the  German,  by  Samuel  H.  Tur- 
ner, D.  D.,  Professor  of  Bib.  Learn,  andlaterp.  of  Script,  in 
the  General  Theological  Sem.  of  the  Prot.  Episc.  Church  in 
the  United  States .^ 401—479. 

Treatise  on  the  Use  of  the  Syriac  Language,  by  John  David 
MicHABus;  translated  from  the  German,  by  John  Frede- 
rick Schroeder,  a.  M.,  An  Assistant  Minister  of  Trinity 
Church,  in  the  City  of  New-York 481—62!^. 

I?^DEXES. 

I.  Texts  of  Scripture  illustrated -....  537. 

IL  Words  and  phrases  explained 540. 

III.  Authors  and  Books  quoted 543. 

IV.  General  Index  of  Matters. . . ,  „ 550. 


HISTORY 

OF 

IXTRODUCTIOXS  TO  THE  SCRIPTURES. 


BY  W.  GESENIUS. 


Translated  from  the  German. 
By  SAMUEL  H.  TURNER,  D.D. 

PROF.  OF  BIBL.  LEARN.  AND  INTERP.  OF  SCRIPT.  IN  THE  OENEBAL  THEOL. 
8BM.  OF  TUK  PROT.  EPISC.  CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


HISTORY 


OF 


INTRODUCTIOBTS  TO  THE  SCRIPTURES, 


Translated  from  the  "  Biblische  Einleitung,  oder  Einleitung 
in  die  Bibel"  of  Gesenius,  published  in  the  Allgtmtine 
Enclyclopddie  der  Wissenschaftcn  ttnd  Kibiste  von  J.  S. 
Ersch  imd  J,  G.  Gruber. 


Under  the  name  of  Introduction  to  the  Bible  is  to  be  un- 
derstood a  species  of  learning,  which  has  been  fundamentally 
cultivated  within  a  century,  and  in  its  present  form  principally 
by  the  Protestant  divines  of  Germany  ;  and  which  is  devoted 
to  a  critical  examination  and  discussion  of  the  historical  rela- 
tions of  the  individual  books,  as  well  as  of  the  whole  collec- 
tion ;  and  therefore  the  epithets  of  historical  and  critical  are 
often  applied  to  it.  Consequently  it  gives  on  the  particular 
books  discussions  respecting  their  authors  and  times  of  com- 
position, genuineness  and  integrity,  contents,  spirit  and  plan ; 
and  £Llso,  as  the  subject  requires  it,  respecting  the  original 
language,  its  earliest  history,  and  so  forth ;  and  further,  in 
general  respecting  the  origin  of  the  Bible-collection  or  Canon, 
its  original  language  and  versions,  the  history  of  the  original 
text,  and  other  matters  of  this  kind. 

It  divides  itself  therefore  into  two  parts,  general  and  parti- 
cular. It  has  been  correctly  obsei-ved,  that  this  branch  of 
learning  still  requires  to  be  more  accurately  defined  and  limit- 


4  HrSTORY  Of  IN'THODUCTIONS. 

cd ;  that  in  particular  it  often  encroaches  on  tlie  province  of 
criticism  and  hermeneutics :  and  certainly  the  latest  authors 
are  still  too  discursive,  especially  in  taking  up  their  materials 
for  the  general  introduction  ;  and  in  fact,  the  older  writers, 
(and  the  modern  among  the  English,)  have  even  brought 
together  those  branches  of  learning  which  are  subsidiary  to 
interpretation,  as  sacred  history,  antiquities,  geography,  and 
so  forth.  It  will  not  therefore  be  inconsistent  with  my  present 
purpose,  to  attempt  at  least  to  mark  out  this  limitation  ;  and, 
in  doing  so,  I  shall  principally  keep  in  view  the  general  in. 
troduction,  because  the  boundaries  of  the  particular  are  more 
accurately  settled. 

The  leading  features  are  the  same,  both  with  respect  to 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  it  may  even  in  many 
particular  points  be  of  use  to  treat  the  general  part  of  both  in 
connexion.  Of  this  I  would  suggest  the  following  fourfold 
division : 

1.  History  of  the  cultivation  and  literature  of  the  Hebrew 
people  in  general,  under  which  section  might  be  digested 
the  accounts  of  their  language,  (comprehending  the  various 
fundamental  tongues,  Hebrew,  Chaldee,  Hellenistic,  with  the 
history  and  character  of  each,)  and  also  of  their  writing,  (comr 
prising  the  earliest  formations  of  the  Hebrew^  and  Greek  writ- 
ing.) 

2.  History  of  the  canon,  or  of  the  collection,  arrangement, 
and  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  books. 

3.  History  of  the  original  text,  the  various  fates  and  changes 
to  which  it  has  been  subjected,  and  of  the  means  of  improving 
it,  (Criticism.)  Here  the  authors  of  introductory  works  ap- 
pear to  have  been  principally  in  doubt  respecting  the  extent 
of  the  points  which  they  ought  to  discuss.  The  following 
principle  will  probably  be  found  to  mark  a  correct  and  proper 
division.  The  criticism  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  di- 
vides itself  into  two  parts,  historical  and  didactic.  The  first  of 
these  pursues  the  history  of  the  text,  discovers  its  changes, 
shows  the.  critical  labours  which  have  been  expended  on  it, 
and  the  documents  in  which  the  text  has  been  handed  down  ; 
namely,  immediate,  (as  manuscripts.)  and  mediate,  (as  ancient 


HISTORY  OF  INTRODUCTIONS.  ^^^^^/l?'^^ 


versions.)  The  second  communicates  the  i-ules  according  to 
which  the  critic  must  avail  himself  of  these  helps,  in  order  to 
recover  the  original  text  with  as  much  probability  as  possible. 
The  historical  part  of  this  must  now  necessarily  be  compre- 
hended under  the  learning  which  is  comprised  in  an  introduc- 
tion ;  but  the  didactic,  which  contains  merely  an  application  of 
the  general  rules  of  criticism  to  the  materials  here  sketched  out, 
must,  by  a  strict  limitation,  be  properly  excluded,  (as  in  Eich- 
hom,)  and  preserved  for  criticism,  as  it  is  a  science  of  a  parti- 
cular kind,  or  at  least  be  handled  with  great  brevity,  (as  in 
De  Wette.)     This  is  also  the  case, 

4.  In  the  hermen  euiical  part  of  the  general  introduction,  which 
is  required  to  exhibit  the  aids  for  understanding  the  Bible,  and 
directions  for  the  use  of  them ;  and  which  many  authors  of  in- 
troductory works,  as  Eichhorn  and  Bertholdt,  either  entirely  or 
in  part  omit.  Jalm,  however,  has  given  them  with  considerable 
extent,  including  also  the  didactic  part,  at  least  as  far  as  regards 
the  investigation  of  language.  To  preserve  consistency,  the 
last  must  be  reserved  for  hermeneutics,  in  such  a  way  that  the 
author  should  hmit  himself  to  the  historical  part,  which  belongs 
to  it  no  less  than  the  historical  part  does  to  criticism.  The 
helps  for  understanding  it  relate  to  language  and  to  things ;  and 
of  course  hermeneutics  ckvides  itself  into  an  investigation  of 
these  two.  For  investigating  the  language,  which  is  here  the 
principal  point,  we  have  as  sources  of  information  ;  (a)  the  in- 
terpretations of  the  books  of  Scripture  which  have  been  handed 
down  from  antiquity ;  that  is,  ancient  versions,  and  expositions 
of  the  Old  Testament  by  Rabbins,  and  of  the  New  by  the  fa- 
thers, which  it  is  necessary  to  adduce  and  to  judge  of ;  (/3)  our 
knowledge,  arising  from  other  sources,  of  the  Eastern  lan- 
guages and  of  the  Greek,  as  existing  in  profane  authors,  which 
must  be  applied  to  the  thorough  examination,  correction,  and 
establishment  of  those  transmitted  interpretations.  The  in- 
vestigation of  things  is  exhibited  in  that  branch  of  knowledge 
which  is  called  exegetical  helps.  This  divides  itself  into  his- 
torical, (which  includes  biblical  geography,  together  with  na- 
tural philosophy,  biblical  history  with  chronology,  mythology, 


B  HISTORY  OP  INTRODUCTIONS. 

and  so  forth,)  and  dogmatic,  (that  is,  biblical  doctrine  anfi 
morals.) 

It  is  impossible  in  an  introduction  to  treat  these  subjects 
fully;  nothing  more  can  be  given  than  a  general  idea  of 
them.      In  this  arrangement,   however,    doubts  may  arise 
with  respect  to  the  ancient  versions,  since  they  must  be  intro- 
duced as  subsidiary  to  criticism  as  well  as  to  hermeneutics. 
Hence  it  is  probably  the  most  advisable  course,  to  give  the 
general  information  respecting  them  in  the  critical  part,  and 
their  character,  as  far  as  regards  interpretation,  in  that  which 
is  appropriated  to  hermeneutics.      Moreover,  it  must  be  re- 
marked, that  the  very  last  consideration  is  the  identical  point 
which  is  much  neglected  in  recent  works  of  this  kind  ;  and  this 
is  the  more  to  be  regretted,  as  the  hermeneutical  value  of  the 
versions  is  on  the  whole  much  greater  than  the  critical,  since 
their  greater  or  less  variations  from  the  text  do  but  very  rare- 
ly indeed  contain  improvements  of  it,  but  on  the  contrary  are 
for  the  most  part  founded  on  errors  in  the  translations.     In 
the  particular  introduction  to  the  individual  books,  only  this 
difference  is  to  be  observed  in  the  plan,  that  some  writers  in 
this  department,  as  Jahn,  give  an  explanatory  view  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  books,  which  is  omitted  by  most  of  the  others. 
But,  at  least  in  academical  lectures,  and  especially  on  the  Old 
Testament,  they  are  most  undoubtedly  necessary. 

Besides  introductions  of  a  historical  and  critical  character, 
and  vt^hich  are  properly  speaking  literary,  the  idea  of  a  practi- 
cal introduction  has  been  suggested  and  carried  into  effect ; 
that  is  to  say,  an  introduction,  which,  setting  aside  discussions 
of  a  critical  kind,  or  taking  for  granted  the  results  of  them,  con- 
fines its  attention  to  the  books  of  Scripture  in  a  practical  point 
of  view,  and  gives  directions  for  the  use  of  them  in  reference 
to  the  religious  instruction  of  youth,  and  of  people  in  general.^ 
Such  works  are  useful,  when  the  authors,  resting  on  the  firm 
basis  of  solid  learning,  make  the  religious  and  moral  force  in 


*  See  Berger's  prakt.  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T.,  vom  3  Theile  an 
fortgesetzt  von  Augusti,  4  Theile,  Leipzig,  1799 — 1804. 


HiSTORY  OP  INTRODUCTIONS.  > 

the  particular  books,  sections,  and  characters  of  the  Bible 
stand  out  prominent ;  *  they  will  then  often  agree  in  contents^ 
with  the  view  of  religion  and  morals  given  in  the  Bible,  and 
only  vary  from  it  in  the  free  arrangement  in  which  it  is  present- 
ed. 

The  kind  of  learning  which  1  have  been  describing  is,  as 
has  been  remarked,  the  growth  of  the  last  century,  and  is  in- 
debted principally  for  its  origin  to  the  discussions  of  German 
Protestants  on  the  various  subjects  connected  with  the  Bible  ; 
and  the  name,  as  now  usually  applied,  was  first  employed  by 
J.  G.  Carpzov.  a  work  in  some  respects  similar  to  an  in- 
troduction to  the  Bible  was  first  given  to  the  world  by 
Aug  us  TIN  in  his  Doctrina  Christiana^  t  which,  however,  is 
rather  hermeneutical  advice  in  reading  the  Scriptures.  This 
was  followed  in  the  sixth  century  by  a  production  of  Cassio- 
DORUS,  t  who  begins  his  directions  for  the  study  of  theological 
literature  with  an  account  of  the  books  of  Scripture  and  then- 
interpreters.  In  modern  times  Sixtus  Sinensis  first  collect- 
ed together  the  materials  belonging  to  this  subject  in  his 
Bibliotheca  Sandal  §  which  remained  an  universally  esteem- 
ed manual,  until  it  was  supplanted,  at  least  among  Protestants, 
by  W ALT  her' s  Officina  Biblica^  a  pretty  meagre  production.|| 
Yet  even  this  work  found  its  imitators  and  plagiarists,  and 


*  See  Nibmeyer's  Characteristik  der  Bibel,  5  Theile,  Halle,.  1775— 
1782. 

t  AuGusTiNus  de  Doctrina  Christiana,  libri  iv,  ed.  J.  G.  Chb.  Tee- 
«ui5,  Lipz.  1769,  8vo. 

i  Marci  Aurelu  Cassiodori,  Senatoris,  de  institutione  divinanim 
scrlpturarum  liber,  ed.  Damelius,  Antwerp,  1566,  and  in  Cassiodori 
0pp.  ed.  Caret  1679,  Svol.  fol. 

$  Bibliotheca  Sancta  a  F.  (fratre)  Sixto  Senensi  et  prsecipuis  catho- 
licae  ecclesiae  auctoribus  collecta  et  in  octo  libros  digesta,  Venetiis,  1666, 
fol.    The  best  edition  is  that  of  John  Hav,  1591,  4to. 

II  D.  MiCHAKLis  Waltkri  Officina  Biblica,  noviter  adaperla,  in  qua 
perspicue  videre  licet,  quae  scitu  cogniluque  maxime  sunt  necessaria  de 
S.  Scriptura  in  genere  et  in  specie,  de  libris  ejus  canonicis,  apocryphis, 
deperditis  etspuriis,  cet.  Lips.  1630, 4to.  3nd  ed.  after  the  author's  death, 
1668,  last  1703;  fol.,  but  full  of  errors. 


b  HISTORY  OF  INTRODUCTIONS. 

particularly  in  Heidegger.  *  All  these  books  were,  at  mosty 
zealous  collections  of  what  Josephus,  the  Rabbins,  the  fathers, 
and  later  Christian  doctrinal  writers,  had  related  one  after 
another,  or  had  also  conjectured  and  imagined  respecting  the 
origin,  authority,  and  history  of  the  books  of  Scripture. 

The  first  important  steps  for  a  thorough,  learned,  and  critical 
treatment,  particularly  of  what  is  called  the  general  introduc- 
tion, were  made,  in  the  path  opened  by  J.  H.  Hottinger,  t  a 
man  well  versed  in  Oriental  learning,  and  Leusden,  |  a  pupil 
and  true  follower  of  Buxtorf,  during  the  latter  half  of  the  17th 
century,  in  England  by  Brian  Walton,  and  in  France  by 
Richard  Simon.  The  former  pubhshed  in  his  Prolegomena  to 
the  London  Polyglot  very  learned  disquisitions  on  the  language 
and  ^\Titing  of  the  Bible,  the  history  of  the  text,  and  of  the 
versions  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  This  was  first 
printed  in  the  Polyglot,  1657,  then  as  a  separate  work  under 
the  title,  Briani  Waltoni  Angli  apparatus  biblicus,  ed.  Hei-J 
J0E6GER,  Tiguri,  1723,  fol.,  and  again  under  this,  Br.  Wal- 
toni in  Biblia  Polyglotta  Prolegomena,  ed.  J.  A.  Dathe, 
Lips.  1777,  8vo.  The  latter  of  these  celebrated  scholars 
handled  the  same  subjects  at  the  same  time  with  a  spirit  of 
inquiry,  a  keenness  of  criticism  and  of  judgment,  and  also  a 
freedom  of  thought  far  beyond  his  age ;  so  that  the  results  of 
liis  investigations  became  first  adequately  valued  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  18th  century,  and  particularly  by  means  of  Semler 
were  brought  into  notice  and  consideration  in  Germany.  § 


•^  Jo.  HiNR.  Heideggkri  Enchiridion  Biblicum  U^efAtufidyiKov.  Tiguri, 
1681,  8vo.,  the  last  Jena,  1723. 

t  Thesaurus  philologicus  seu  clavis  Scripturae  Sacrse.  Tig.  1649,  ed. 
iii,  1696, 4to. 

X  Philologus  Hebrajus,  Ultraj.  1656,  ed.  v.  1696.  Ejusd.  Philol.  He* 
braeo-mixtus,  Ultraj.  1663.  ed.  iv.    Basle,  1739,  4to. 

^  Histoire  critique  du  Vieux  Testament,  par  le  P^re  Richard  Simow, 
pretre  de  la  congregation  de  I'Oratoire,  a  Paris  1678,  4to.  The  Elzevir 
edition,  Amst.  1679,'is  very  erroneous,  yet  from  it  was  the  Latin  transla- 
tion of  N.  Anbert  de  Versi  composed,  Paris,  1681, 4to.  The  most  cor. 
rect  and  complete  edition  is  that  of  Rotterdam,  1685,     Histoire  Critique 


HISTORY  OF  INTRODUCTiaNSi  'h 

in  the  verbal  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  pointed  out 
the  weaknesses  of  the  superstitious  views  of  Buxtorf,  and  of 
those  of  the  opposite  kind  which  were  maintained  by  Cappel. 
In  interpretation  he  criticised,  with  distinguished  ability,  the 
existing  translations  and  commentaries ;  and  in  the  depai't- 
ment  of  higher  criticism  on  particular  books,  he  was  the  first 
who  in  modern  times  maintained,  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its 
present  form  could  not  have  arisen  from  Moses.  *  As  was 
naturally  to  be  expected,  he  met  with  many  opponents,  and 
the  critical  history  of  the  Old  Testament,  (which,  however, 
has  been  incorrectly  considered  as  a  complete  introduction 
in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  since  it  merely  contains 
the  general  and  some  parts  of  the  particular,)  was  even 
seized  and  suppressed  at  the  command  of  Bishop  Bossuet. 
With  many  of  these  opponents  Simon  was  engaged  in  a  coui'se 
of  bitter  controversy,  as  for  instance  with  Isaac  Vossius,  on 
the  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  and  with  Le  Clerc,  (Cleri- 
cus,)  who,  however,  far  from  finding  fault  with  his  boldness, 
in  many  points  goes  still  further  ;t   he  upbraids  him  also,  and 


du  teste  du  Nouveau  Testament,  par  R.  Simon,  Rotterdam,  1689,  4to. 
The  same  author's  Histoh-e  Critique  des  Versions  du  Nouveau  Testament, 
Rotterdam,  1690,  4to.  Nouvelles  observations  sur  le  texte  et  les  ver- 
sions du  Nouveau  Testament,  Paris,  1695,  4to.  Hlstoire  Critique  des 
principaux  commentateurs  du  Nouveau  Testament,  Rotterdam,  1693, 
4to.  R.  Simon's  Krit.  Historie  desTextes  des  N.  T.  Aus  der  Franz,  voa 
H.  M.  A,  Cramer,  mit  Vorrede  und  Aamevkungen  von  J.  S.  SsMLitR, 
Halle,  1776,  8.  R.  Simon's  Krit.  Historie  der  Uebersetzungea  des 
N.  T.  u.  s.  w.  Halle,  1777, 1780,  2  Bde.  8.  Both  works  under  the  title, 
R.  Simon's  Kritische  Scbriften  ttber  dasN.T.  3  Bde. 

*  Hi^t.  Crit.  du  Vieux  Test.  chap.  5—7.  [The  loose  views  of  Father 
Simon  on  this  and  some  other  points  accord  so  well  with  those  which  the 
author  is  known  to  entertain,  that  the  reader  will  neither  be  surprised  at 
the  high  degreeof  commendation  here  bestowed  on  the  French  critic, 
nor  at  a  loss  how  to  appreciate  it.  For  a  valuable  discussion  of  the 
authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  see  Jahn's  Introduction, 
Partii.  $  3— 14,  pp.  176— 202.  Tr.] 

t  (Le  Clerc)  Sentimens  de  quelques  Tbeologiens  de  Hollandc  sur 
I'histoiro  critique  du  Vieux  Test,  coraposee  par  le  P.  Richard  Simon, 
Amsterdam,  1685,  12,  ed.  2,  1711,  12.  Briefe  einiger  HolJandischen 
Gottesgelebrten  ttber  P,  Simon's  Kritische  Geschichte  des  \.  T.  aui 

2 


"^O  WlSTORY  OF  INTRODUCTmSS. 

Xvith  justice,  on  account  of  his  dogmatical  manner  in  disput- 
ing, and  the  unwarranted  severity  of  his  strictures  on  the 
works  of  Protestants. 

After  these  predecessors,  J.  G.  Carpzov  prepared  in  Ger- 
many his  work  on  the  Old  Testament,  an  introduction  in  the 
present  sense  of  the  word,  and  gave  to  what  may  be  consi- 
dered as  the  outward  part  of  this  kind  of  literature,  both  its 
form,  and  also  the  nam^  which  it  has  since  retained.  Still, 
however,  the  author  limited  its  application  to  the  particular 
introduction,*  and  treated  of  the  general  in  a  separate  work,  t 
He  is,  moreover,  heartily  opposed  to  the  free  views  of  Simon, 
and  to  the  yet  bolder  hints  which,  in  the  meantime,  Spinoza 
had  thrown  out,  |  considers  it  as  his  duty  to  reject  and  oppose 
them,  and  fetters  himself  entirely  by  the  doctrines  of  the 
Lutheran  church. 

The  first  writer  who  trod  again  in  the  footsteps  of  R.  Si- 
mon was  J.  S.  Semler  ;  §  and,  (to  speak  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment first,)  after,  in  our  own  time,  by  the  eflforts  of  J.  D. 
MiCHAELis,  a  learned  manner  of  treating  the  Old  Testament 
began  to  prevail  in  Germany,  and,  by  means  of  the  works  of 
X.OWTH  and  Herder,  ||  these  subjects  were  handled  with  more 
taste,  EicHHORN  composed  his  introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  is  for  the  time  so  free  and  elegant,  and  which 


dem  Franz,  (by  Corrodi.)  The  place  is  not  designated,  but  it  was  print- 
ed at  Zurich,  1779. 

*  Introductio  ad  libros  canonicos  V.  T.  Lipsiae,  1721,  4to.  3  edit. 
1741,  4to. 

t  Critica  Sacra  V.  T.  Lips.  1728,  4t&. 

t  In  his  Tf  actatus  theologico-politicus,  Hamburgi,  1672. . 

§  Apparatus  ad  liberalem  Vet.  Test,  interpretationem,  Halse,  1773, 
8vo.  Apparatus  ad  liberalem  Nov.  Test,  interpretationem.  Ibid,  1767, 
8vo. 

11  Rob."  Lowth,  de  sacra  poesi  Hebrajorum  praelectiones,  ed.  Mi- 
CHAEUS,  Gottingae,  1758.  [An  English  translation  of  this  work,  with 
'.'  the  principal  notes  of  Michaelis,  and  notes  by  the  translator  and 
others,"  by  G.  Gregory,  F.  A.  S.,  was  published  in  England,  and  re- 
published in  Boston,  1815,  Tr.]  Herder's  Briefe,  das  Studium  der 
Theologie  betreffend,  1780,  Also  his  Geist  der  Hebr.  Foesie,  1782,  S 
Theile. 


HISTORY  OP  INTRODUCTIONS,  JT 

avails  itself  with  so  much  abiHty  of  the  works  which  had  pre- 
ceded it,  (of  Walton  and  Carpzov's  Critica  Sacra  in  the 
general  divisons  of  the  subject,)  that  with  him  a  new  epoch  in 
this  department  of  literature  was  introduced.  *  A  similar 
work  t  begun  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  did  not  advance  beyond 
the  first  volume,  and  some  small  compends  by  Gute  and 
Eabor  are  mere  extracts  of  Eichhorn ;  but  soon  other  men  of 
investigating  minds  made  their  appearance,  as  Nachtigall 
(Ottmar,)  Hasse,  E.  F.  C.  Rosenmuller,  Bertholdt,  Va- 
TER,  De  Wette,  and  others,  tlirough  whose  investigations  of 
particular  subjects,  the  views  presented  by  Eichhorn  were,  in 
many  points,  partly  advanced  and  partly  corrected  and  done 
away.  |  The  questions  of  higher  criticism  here  brought  to 
the  test  of  language  were  as  follows : — whether  the  Penta- 
teuch is  of  Mosaic  origin  or  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Moses  ; 
— ^whether  the  book  of  Job  w^ere  written  before  the  age  of 
Moses  or  later ; — on  the  authority  of  the  books  of  Chronicles 
^d  their  connexion  with  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings ; — 
the  later  composition  of  the  book  of  Daniel ;  and  others  of 
this  kind.  But  a  learned  Roman  Catholic,  and  for  many 
members  of  his  own  church,  much  too  free  in  his  inquiries,  § 
appeared  in  the  person  of  John  Jahn,  ||  who  opposed  the 


*  J.  G.  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  in  das  A.  T.  3  Theile,  Leipzig,  1780— 
1783.  [x\lso,  considerably  enlarged,  in  5  volumes,  at  Gottingen,  1823, 
1824.] 

f  Einleitung  in  die  Gottlichen  Schriften  des  A.  B.  1  Tbl.  Hamburg, 
1787,  4. 

t  See  Hasse  Aussichten  zu  kunftigen  Aufklarungen  tiber  das  A.  T. 
Jena,  1785.  Rosenmuller  Scholia  V.  T.,  and  the  introductions  therein 
contained  to  the  particular  books,  for  example,  to  the  book  of  Job,  and 
to  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  3rd  edition.  Vater's  Comment,  tiber  den 
Pentateuch,  Part.  Theil.  3, 1805.  Bertholdt's  Daniel,  1806—1808. 
De  Wette's  Beitrage  zur  Einleit.  in  das  A.  T.  2  Bandchen,  1806, 1807. 
tCompare  also  the  author's  Geschichte  der  Hebraischen  Sprache  und 
Schrift.  Leipz.  1815,  Comment,  de  Pent.  Sam.,  Halae,  1815,  and  Com- 
ment, uber  den  lesaia.  Leipz.  1820,  Tr.] 

$  SeeDe  necessitate  incautos  praeveniendi  adversus  artes  nonnullorum 
professorum  Hermeneutrces  cet.  Romae,  1818.  On  the  other  side,  Vindi- 
ciae  Johan  Jahn,  Lipsiee,  1822. 

H  Einleitung  in  die  GSttlichen  BOrber  des  Alten  Bundes.  Wieii,1793, 


12  HISTORY  OF  INTRODUCTIONS. 

bold  views  of  these  Protestant  writers,  or,  at  most,  only  im* 
parted  them  where  they  did  not  come  into  collision  with  those 
of  his  church  :  *  whereupon  Bertholdt,  in  his  work  which 
comprehends  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  has  at- 
tempted principally  to  collect  the  various  views  and  to  effect 
an  accommodation  between  the  ancient  and  modern.!  Abridg- 
ments, to  be  used  at  lectures,  adopting  the  improvements  which 
have  been  made  since  Eichhorn  wrote,  were  published  by 
Bauer  t  and  Augusti  ;  §  but  by  far  the  richest  and  most 
original  by  De  Wette.  || 

The  plan  of  many  of  these  Jast  writers  embraces  also  the 
Apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  the  higher  criticism 
of  which  the  road  had  been  opened  by  Eichhorn.  H 

After  the  very  learned  preparatory  works  of  Richard  Si- 
mon, the  first  who  published  an  introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  J.  D.  MiCHAELis.  His  work  was  a  very  imperfect 
manual,  whidh  in  later  editions  was  greatly  improved  and  en- 
larged, and  by  Herbert  Marsh  was  enriched  with  learned 


8,  2  Ausg.  1802 — 3,  in  3  Banden.     The  same  author's  Introductio  in  li- 
bros  Sacros  Vet.  Fcederis  in  compendium  redacta.  Viennae,  1805,  8vo. 

*  [Although  it  must  be  allowed  that  Dr.  Jahn  does  in  some  degree 
permit  himself  to  be  fettered  by  the  principles  of  his  own  communion, 
yet  no  one  who  has  read  his  introductions  can  have  failed  to  observe,  that 
he  frequently  endeavours  to  explain  those  principles  in  accommodation 
with  the  spirit  of  free  Protestantism.  Indeed,  in  some  cases,  he  has  ex. 
ceeded  the  bounds  of  sober  criticism.  That  the  remark  of  Gesenius  re- 
quires to  be  greatly  qualified  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  some  of  Jahn's 
works  were  prohibited  by  a  decree  of  Pope  Pius  VII.  See  Horne's 
Introduction,  vol.  ii.  Part  ii.  Appendix,  p.  134,  6th  edition,  1828,  Tr.]} 

t  D.  L.  Bertholdt  historisch-kritische  Einleitung  in  samtlichekano- 
nische  und  apokryphische  Schriften  des  Alten  und  Neuen  Testaments, 
6  Theile,  Erlangen,  1812—19.  The  aprocryphal  books  of  the  N.  T.  are 
not  included. 

t  Entvvurf  eincr  hist.  krit.  Einleit.  in  die  Schriften  des  A.  T.  1794, 
Dritte  Aufl.  1806. 

§  Chr.  W.  Augusti  Grundriss  einer  hist.  krit.  Einleit.  in  das  A.  T. 
Leipzig,  1806,  8. 

{I  Lehrbuch  der  hist.  krit.  Einleit.  in  das  A.  T.  Berlin,  1817,  2,  Auflo 
1823. 

11  Einleit.  in  die  Apokryphischen  Bttcher  des  A.  T.  Leipzig,  1795,  8. 


HISTORY  or  INTRODUCTIONS,  13 

additions  and  corrections.  *  But  the  markod  progress  which 
bihlical  criticism  and  exeges'is  had  made  towards  the  end  of 
the  last  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  was  con- 
spicuous in  the  manuals  respectively,  of  Hanlein,  whose  work 
is  particularly  distinguished  by  its  agreeable  composition,  of 
J.  C.  Chr,  Schmidt,  who  abounds  with  clear  and  unbiassed 
views,  and  of  J.  L.  Hug,  who  excels  all  his  predecessors  in  deep 
and  fundamental  investigations,  t  Eichhorn  has  also  extended 
his  inquiries  to  the  subjects  comprehended  in  the  introduction 
to  the  New  Testament,  but  has  published  no  more  at  present 
than  the  particular  introduction,  t  The  subjects,'  in  this  de- 
partment, which  have  engaged  the  attention  of  the  inquirers, 
as  of  principal  importance,  and  have  occasioned  many  hy- 
potheses and  learned  controversies,  are  the  following:  the 
arrangement  of  the  manuscripts  according  to  recensions  and 
classes,  (Griesbach's  system  of  recensions ;) —  the  manner  of 
illustrating  the  agreement  of  the  first  three  gospels ; — the 
chronology  of  FauFs  epistles,  and,  since  the  publication  of 
ScHLEiERMACHER  and  Bretschneider's  works  on  this  sub- 
ject, also  the  authenticity  of  the  gospel  of  John,  §  and  of  the 
epistles  to  Timothy.  1| 


*  J.  D,  MicHAELis  Einleit.  in  die  Gottlichen  Schriften  des  Neuen  Bun- 
des,  Gbttingen,  1760,  Vierte  Ausgabe,  1788.  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament  by  John  Dav.  Michaelis,  translated  and  considerably  aug- 
inentediwith  notes,  explanatory  and  supplemental,  by  Herbert  Marsh, 
Cambridge,  1793,  6  vol.  8vo.  A  German  translation  of  these  additions 
was  published  by  C.  Fr.  C.Rosenmoller,  at  Goltingen  in  1795,  1803, 3 
Bande,  4. 

t  H.  K.  A.  Hanlein  Handbuch  der  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften  des 
N.  T.  2te  Auflage,  1802—1809,  3  Thl.  8.— J.  C.  Chr.  Schmidt's  hist, 
krit.  Einleitung  in  das  N.  T.  Giessen,  1804,  1805,  2  Theile,  8.— J.  L. 
Hug's  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testam.  Tubingen,  1808, 
2te  Aufl.  1821,  2  Bde.  8.  [An  English  translation  of  this  work  was  pub- 
lished by  the  Rev.  Daniel  Guildford  Wait,  LL.  D.,  London,  1827,  2 
vols.  8vo.  Tr.] 

t  Einleitung  ins  N.  T.  Th.  1—3,  1804—14.  Also  under  the  title, 
Kriti€che  Schriften,  Th.  5—7. 

$  [A  view  of  the  principal  objections  which  have  been  reeently  urged 
against  the  authenticity  of  St.  John's  gospel,  and  a  very  able  defence  of 
it,  may  be  found  in  Kuinol's  Prolegomena,  $  2,  pp.  1 1—34,  Lips.  1817,  Tr.J 

!!  [The  authenticity  of  the  epistles  to  Timothy  has  been  defended  by 


14  HISTORT  OP  INTRODUCTIONS. 

With  respect  to  the  subjects  under  review,  other  nations  are 
far  behind  the  advances  w^hich  have  been  made  by  the  Ger- 
mans ;  and  Holland  and  England  have  contented  themselves; 
with  acquiring  some  of  the  principal  works  of  Michaehs  and 
Eichhorn  by  means  of  translations.  The  general  causes  of 
this  are  to  be  found  partly  in  this  fact,  that  in  those  countries 
the  Bible  is  not  studied  with  so  much  ardour  as  with  us ;  and 
partly  also  in  this,  that  the  doctrinal  views  of  foreign  divines 
are  opposed  to  the  results  to  which  many  of  the  disquisitions 
tend.  *  Only  the  works  of  Lanigan,  a  Roman  Catholic  of 
Italy,  t  and  Horne,  J  deserve  to  be  mentioned.  Both  these 
writers  compriehend  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  the 
latter  the  exegetical  helps  also,  as  biblical  antiquities,  geo- 
graphy, and  other  subjects  of  this  kind.  The  author  has  made 
use  also  of  German  writers,  but  not  since  the  time  of  Michae- 
lis  and  Eichhorn.  § 


J.  F.  Beckhaus,  in  a  work  entitled :  Specimen  Observationum  critico- 
esegeticorum  de  vocabulis  *9r«|  xtydfjuttus  et  variis  dicendi  formulis  in 
I  ad  Timotheum  Epistolam  authentiae  ejus,  nihil  detrahentibus,  Lingen, 
1810,  8vo.  Tr.] 

*  [The  unrestrained  licentiousness  of  assertion,  founded  in  many 
cases  solely  upon  hypothesis,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  general  tradi- 
tion and  whatever  evidence  is  afforded  by  history,  in  which  some  of  the 
late  German  critics  have  indulged,  has  with  reason  given  offence  to 
grave  and  sober  men,  both  in  their  own  country  and  elsewhere.  Disquisi- 
tions of  the  kind  referred  to,  do  by  no  means  tend  to  the  results  with 
which  the  German  neologists  have  satisfied  themselves.  They  tend  to 
a  fundamental  acquaintance  with  Scripture,  to  a  confirmation  of  its 
claims  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God,  and  to  a  sound  and  incontrovertible 
system  of  religious  faith,  founded  in  all  its  parts,  not  on  metaphysical 
philosophy  or  traditional  authority,  but  on  the  Bible,  and  nothing  but 
the  Bible.  Tr.] 

t  Institutiones  biblicae,  T.  I,  Ticini,  1793,  8vo. 

t  An  Introduction  to  the  critical  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Lon- 
don, 1816,  3  vols.  8vo.  [The  sixth  and  last  edition,  in  five  vols.  8vo, 
London,  1828,  is  much^enlarged  and -improved.  Tr.] 

§  [This  is  a  mistake,  as  Mr.  Horne  has  availed  himself  of  some  of  the 
latest  German  writers,  especially  in  his  last  and  improved  edition. — rThe 
author  has  omitted  to  mention  the  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament 
and  Apocrypha,  by  Robert  Gray,  D.  D.  (now  bishop  of  Bristol,)  pub 
lished  at  London,  1790,  8vo ;  and  the  Key  to  the  New  Testament,  bv 


ttlSTdRY  OP  INTRODUCTIONS,  15 

To  complete  the  account  of  German  literatm'C  in  this  de- 
partment, it  is  necessary  to  give  a  place  to  the  various  periodi- 
cal papers  and  magazines,  which  contain  in  part  critical  re- 
views of  writings  on  these  subjects,  and  in  part  discussions 
on  particular  points ;  as,  for  instance  :  J.  D.  Michaelis  exe- 
getische  und  orientalische  Bibliothek,  24  Bde.  Gottingen,  1771 
—83,  8 ; — the  same  author  and  Chr.  Th.  Tychsen's  Neue 
exeget.  und  oriental.  Bibliothek,  8  Bde.  1784—1789 ;— Eich- 
horn's  allgem.  Bibliothek  der  biblischen  Literatur,  10  Bde. 
Leipzig,  1787 — 1801 ; — the  same  author's  Repertorium  fiir 
biblische  und  morgenlandische  Literatur,  18  Thieile,  Leipzig, 
1777 — 1786,  8  ;— (Corrodi's)  Beitrage  zum  vemiinftigen 
Denken  in  der  Religion,  18  Hefte.  Winterthur,  1781—1794, 
continued  (by  Keller,)  Heft.  19,  20, 1801— 2 ;— Paulus  N. 
Repertorium  fiir  bibl.  und  morgenl.  Lit.  3  Theile,  Jena,  1*390 
— 1 ; — the  same  author^s  Memorabilien,  B.  1—^8,  Leipzig, 
1787 — 96; — Henke's  Magazin  fiir  Religions  -  philosophic, 
Exegese  und  Kirchengeschichte,  12  Bde.  (the  last  six  also 
under  the  title :  Neues  Magazin,  Th.  1 — 6 ;) — the  same  au- 
thor's Museum  fur  Religions  wissenchaft  in  ihrem  ganzen 
Umfange,  3  Bde.  Magdeburg,  1804 — 9 ; — J.  C.  Chr.  Schmidt 
Bibliothek  fur  Kritik  und  Exegese  des  N.  T.  Th.  1—3. 
Herborn,  1796 — 1802  ; — Gabler's  theol.  Journal,  u.  a.  m. ; 
— E.  F.  C.  Rosenmuller  und  G.  H.  Rosenmuller  bibhsch- 
exegetisches  Repertorium,  Heft  1.  Leipzig,  1822 ; — Paulus 
theologisch-exegetisches  Conservatorium,  Heft  1,  2,  Heidel- 
berg, 1821—22. 


Thomas  Percy,  D.  D.,  bishop  of  Dromore,  3rd  edition,  London,  1779, 
12rao.  These  works  are  too  well  known  to  English  readers  to  require 
any  notice. — He  has  also  passed  over  the  works  of  Harwood,  Pritius, 
and  others  ;  accounts  of  which  may  be  found  in  Home,  ubi  sup.  and  in 
Marsh's  Lectures,  Lect.  iii.  Tr.] 


TREATISE 

ON  THE 

AUTHENTICITY   AND   CANONICAL   AUTHORITY 

OF  THE 


BY 

JOHN  GODFREY  EICHHORN. 


Translated  from  the  German, 
Bt  JOHN  FREDERICK  SCHROEDER,  A.^. 

AN  ASSI^ANT  MINISTER  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW-YORK. 


PREFATORY  NOTE, 


This  Treatise  appeared  at  Leipzig,  as  early  as  the  year  1771), 
in  Eichhoen's  "  Repertory  for  Biblical  and  Oriental  Litera- 
ture." *  It  afterward  formed  a  part  of  the  first  volume  of  the 
author's  "  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament :"  t  and  from  the 
fourth  edition  of  this  work  it  is  here  translated  into  English.  The 
subject  has  occupied  the  particular  attention  of  a  number  of  the 
most  eminent  German  criticks,  and  has  been  discussed  with  great 
ability,  in  special  publications,  by  Semler,  Schmid,  Coreodi, 
Camerer,  Spittler,  Deuk,  Frick,  Hornemann,  Sauer,  Gul- 
DENAPFEL,  and  others.  The  following  Investigation  |  is  regard- 
ed among  the  best,  and  most  concentrated  of  them  all.  It  is  giv- 
en erdire,  with  the  omission  §  only  of  a  few  lines  in  the  third  section. 
The  peculiar  opinions  which  they  advance  are  not  essential  to  the 


*  Repertorium  fiir  Biblische  und  Morgenldndische  Liileratur.  Th.  V. 
S.  217—282. 

t  Einleiiung  in  das  Alie  Testament.  The  Jirst  edition  is  in  3  vols.  Oct., 
Leipzig,  1780 — 1783;  and  the  fourth  edition  is  in  5  vols,  oct.,  Gottingen, 
1823—1824. 

X  It  was  originally  entitled:  "  HisloTlsclie.  Untersuchung  liber  den 
Kanon  des  Alien  Testaments;"  Historical  Investigation  of  the  Canon 
ofthe  Old  Testament. 

^  The  omissions  are  noted  bv  asterisks :  *  *  *,. 


20  PREFATORY    NOTE. 

argument ;  and  it  is  thought  they  should  not  be  presented,  witli- 

out  the  addition  of  large  notes,  incompatible  with  the  nature  of 

the  present  work.     At  some  future  period,  the  Treatise  may  be 

submitted  to  the  publick  in  a  different  form.     It  bears  the  impress 

of  Eichhorn's  distinguishing  excellences ;  and  while  it  is  a  brief, 

but  satisfactory  confirmation  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 

it  establishes  our  faith  in  these  venerable  records  of  the  Word  of 

God. 

The  Translator. 

New-Y<yrky  April  8,  1829. 


AUTHENTICITY 


OF   THE 


SCRIPTURES  OF  THE  OJLD  TESTAMENT. 


§.1. 

1.  They  did  not  proceed  from  one  impostor. 

Whoever,  with  knowledge  and  impartiality,  examines  the 
question,  whether  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  are  au- 
thentick,  will  undoubtedly  be  compelled  to  reply  in  the  affirma- 
tive. 

1.  No  ONE  impostor  can  have  forged  them  all :— this  is 
proclaimed  by  every  page  of  the  Old  Testament. 

What  diversity  in  language  and  expression !  Isaiah  does 
not  write  like  Moses,  nor  Jeremiah  like  Ezekiel ;  and  between 
these  and  each  of  the  Minor  Prophets,  as  relates  to  style, 
there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed.  The  grammatical  structure  of  lan- 
guage, in  the  books  of  Moses,  contains  much  that  is  peculiar  ; 
in  the  book  of  Judges  occur  provincialisms  and  barbarisms  ; 
Isaiah  moulds  common  words  into  new  forms  ;  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  abound  in  Chaldaisms.  In  short,  as  w^e  proceed  from 
the  writers  who  assume  an  early  date,  to  those  who  are  more 
recent,  we  observe  the  language  in  a  gradual  decline,  until  it 
sinks  at  last  into  phrases  of  mere  Chaldee. 


22  AUTHENTICITY  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  1. 

Then  what  diversity  in  the  march  of  thought  and  range  of 
imagery  !  The  stringed  instrument  resounds  when  struck 
by  Moses  and  Isaiah ;  and  is  soft  in  intonation  at  the  touch 
of  David.  The  muse  of  Solomon  swells  in  the  splendour  of 
the  most  voluptuous  court ;  but  her  sister,  artlessly  apparelled, 
strays  with  David  along  rivulets  and  banks,  over  plains,  and 
among  flocks  and  herds.  One  poet  is  original,  as  Isaiah,  Joel, 
and  Habakkuk ;  another  imitative,  as  Ezekiel.  One  wanders 
the  untrodden  path  of  a  genius  ;  while  at  his  side,  another 
loiters  along  the  beaten  footway.  From  one  proceed  flashes 
of  surprising  knowledge  ;  and  about  his  neighbour,  not  a  spark 
of  learning  has  ever  kindled.  Through  the  most  ancient  wri- 
ter glow  strong  Egyptian  tints ;  in  his  successors  they  become 
more  and  more  languid,  and  in  the  latest  they  are  entirely  ex- 
tinct.* 

Finally,  even  in  manners, — there  is  the  most  beautiful  grada^ 
tion  !  At  first,  all  is  plain  and  simple  ;  as  in  Homer,  and  at 
the  present  day,  among  the  Bedoween  Arabs.  This  ingenuous 
simplicity  is  gradually  lost  in  luxury  and  effeminacy,  and  at 
last  wholly  disappears  in  the  voluptuous  court  of  Solomon. 

There  is  nowhere  a  sudden  transition  ;  but  throughout,  an 
advance  gradually  progressive  !  None  but  ignorant  or  thought- 
less skepticks  can  admit,  that  the  Old  Testament  has  been 
forged  by  one  impostor. 


*  I' The  characteristicks  of  language,  style  and  manner,  exhibited  by 
the  sacred  writers,  are  copiously  illustrated  by  the  author,  in  his  parti- 
cular introductions  to  the  several  books.  See  his  Introduction  to  the  O. 
T.,  (in  German'),  vols.  iir.  iv.  v.,  the  sections  on  these  subjects ;  Jahn's 
Introduction  to  the  O.  T.,  (translated  by  Prof.  Turner  and  the  Rev.  Mr. 
iVhittingham), .  P.  i.  §.  9.  &.  P.  ii.,  on  the  styfe  of  the  respective  books ; 
Horne's  Introduction,  Vol.  i.  Ch.  ii.  S.  i.  subsect.  iii.  i.  &  iv.  i.  &  Vol. 
IV.  P.  I.  Ch.  I — VII,  on  the  same.  Gesenius,  in  his  History  of  the  Hebrew 
Language,  (in  German),  §  $.  10.  11.  supplies  examples;  andDiWEXTE, 
an  his  Introduction  to  the  Bible,  (in  Germa?i),  $•  34.  directs  the  student 
to  sources  of  information  on  the  subject.  See  also  Lowth's  Lectures, 
{Gregory's  translation),  particularly  Lect.  xxi.  &  xxxiv.,  with  the  Notes 
of  the  Translator  and  others,  Boston,  1815;  and  Rosenmllller's  edition  of 
the  original,  with  the  Notes  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  and  the  editor,  Leipzig, 
1815.      TV.  1 


AUTHENTICITy  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  Si.  Sj$ 


§.2. 

'2,  And  the  Writings  of  the  Old  Testament  did  not  proceed 
from  SEVERAL  impostors. 

'2.  "  But,  perhaps,  several  impostors  have  made  common 
cause,  and  in  a  late  century,  have  at  the  same  time  forged  our 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament." — Yet  how  could  they  forge, 
in  a  manner  so  conformable  to  the  progress  of  the  human 
mind  ?  How  was  it  possible,  in  modern  times,  to  form  the  lan- 
guage* of  Moses?  This  evidently  transcends  all  human 
powers  !  In  fine,  one  writer  always  supposes  the  existence 
of  another ;  t  they  could  not  therefore  have  arisen,  all  at  the 
same  time  ;  it  must  have  been  in  succession. 
'  "  Perhaps,  then,  at  different  periods  there  have  been  such 
impostors,  who  proceed  in  the  introduction  of  spurious  writ- 
ings, just  where  their  forging  predecessors  had  left  off.  Hence 
may  be  explained  the  allusions  of  the  writers  to  each  other  ; 
hence  that  striking  rise  in  all  the  parts  !  "  But  (1.)  How  was 
it  possible,  that  no  one  discovered  and  exposed  the  imposition, 
and  so  branded  the  impostor,  that  after  ages  might  be  secure  ? 
How  could  a  nation,  repeatedly,  at  different  times,  permit  it- 
self to  be  deceived?  And  (2.)  What  purpose  could  such  an 
impostor  have  ?  To  exalt  the  Hebrew  nation  ? — Then  from 
his  praises  result  most  grievous  defamations ;  for  the  Hebrew 
people,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  act  at  all  times  a  most 
unworthy  part ! — Or  to  degrade  the  Hebrews  ? — Yet,  in  this 
case,  hov/  could  the  nation  permit  books  to  be  obtruded  on 
tliem,  that  defamed  their  character,  and  told  in  plain  words, 


■^-  [See  Eichhorn's  Introduction  to  the  O.  T.,  Vol.  i.  $  §.  10,  11; 
.Tahn's  Introd.  to  the  O.  T.,  P.  ii.  ^.  3 ;  Horne's  Introd.,  Vol.  i.  Ch.  u; 
.T.  D.  MicHAELis  Introduction  to  theO.T.,  {in  German),  $.  31 ;  Gesenius' 
History  of  the  Hebr.  Lang.,  §.  11.  subsect.  1.       Tr,  ] 

t  [  The  author  particuUuly  illustrates  this,  in  his  Introd.  to  the  0.  T., 
vol,  I.  ^  4.       Tr.  "' 


24  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  2.  3. 

how  often  foreign  conquerors  may  have  trodden  them  under 
foot?* 

§.3. 

Evidences  of  their  Authenticity. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  Old  Testament  bears  all  the  marks 
of  authenticity. 

1.  The  very  reasonings  that  argue  for  a  Homer,  maintain 
even  the  authenticity  of  all  the  particular  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  .Why  are  we  disposed  to  deny  merely  the  latter 
that  justice  which  we  allow  the  former.  If  a  profane  writer 
assumes  a  certain  period,  and  all  internal  and  external  circum- 
stances of  his  book  accord  with  it ;  then,  no  impartial  inquirer 
after  truth  permits  himself  to  indulge  a  doubt  to  the  contrary. 
Nay,  we  do  not  hestitate  a  moment,  in  reference  to  a  writer  of 
an  unknown  period,  to  decide  his  age  by  internal  considera- 
tions derived  from  his  works.  Why  should  the  critical  in- 
quirer not  pursue  this  course,  in  reference  to  the  Bible  ? 

2.  As  yet,  no  one  has  been  able  to  oppose  with  arguments, 
the  integrity  and  credibility  of  any  writer  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  but  every  discovery  in  ancient  literature  has  hitherto 
been  some  new  confirmation  of  the  sacred  books.  As  yet, 
no  one  has  demonstrated  that  any  writer  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment may  have  composed  in  a  style,  with  knowledge,  and 
under  circumstances,  that  might  not  have  been  conformable 
to  the  age  in  which  he  professed  to  live. 

In  short,  all  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  writers 
of  which  we  know  by  name,  have  been  impressed  with  the 
seal  of  the  integrity  of  their  authors.  And  in  those  books,  the 
authors  of  which  have  been  unknown,  internal  considerations 
always  show,  that  we  are  compelled  to  recognise  them  as  au- 
thentick.    The  Book  of  Joshua,  for  instance,  the  author  of 


»  [  On  this  subject,  consult  Jahn's  Introduction  to  the  0.  T.,  P.  i.  §.  9.      Tr.  1 


AUTBENTICITY  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  3.  25 

which  is  unknown,  enters  so  deeply  into  the  particulars  of  the 
most  ancient  Geography,  that  miracle  upon  miracle  must  have 
been  wrought  on  an  impostor,  if  he  could  have  been  in  a  situa- 
tion to  compose  it  thm. 

Let  any  one  examine,  with  due  intelligence,  and  without 
prejudice ;  and  I  am  certain,  that  he  will  convince  himself  of 
the  Authenticity  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

I  here  premise  however,  what  any  one  will  readily  suppose 
in  works  so  ancient,  that  most  writings  of  the  Hebrews  had 
passed  through  several  hands,  before  they  acquired  their  pre- 
sent form  ;  and  that  ancient  and  modern  may  sometimes  be 
mingled  in  them,  without  leading  an  impartial  judge,  on  this 
account  to  doubt  of  their  authenticity. 

1.  No  ancient  author  of  any  nation  has  survived  the  age 
in  which  he  wrote,  but  various  particulars  may  have  been 
altered  in  his  text,  or  additions  have  been  inserted  in  it. 
Sometimes,  he  was  glossed  designedly,  and  obsolete  words 
and  expressions,  and  geographical  names  were  changed  for 
others  that  were  modern,  to  explain  his  meaning  for  the  later 
reader,  Sometimes,  a  person  made  observations  in  the  mar- 
gin, for  his  own  use  or  that  of  others,  without  intending  that 
they  should  be  inserted  in  the  writer  ;  but  officious  posterity 
has  transferred  the  marginal  observations  into  the  text.  Thus, 
before  we  can  render  the  authenticity  of  a  writing  doubtful 
on  account  of  such  passages,  w^e  must  with  critical  minuteness 
examine,  whether  they  have  from  the  first  existed  in  it,  and 
have  actually  proceeded  from  the  author's  hand. 

%  The  very  nature  of  the  origin  of  many  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  renders  it  necessary,  that  ancient  and  modern 
passages  and  sections  must  interchange  in  them.  Veiy  few 
proceeded  from  the  hand  of  their  authors,  in  the  form  in 
which  we  now  have  them.  The  separate  constituent  parts 
of  many  had  long  been  extant  as  special  works,  before  they 
became  united  with  certain  parts  now  added  to  them.  Should 
even  the  Mosaick  writings,  in  their  present  order,  not  be  those 
of  Moses  ;  yet  they  have  been  collected  from  Mosaick  docu- 
ments, and  have  merely  been  dispose^d  by  a  more  recent 


W  AU-T^HENTICITY  OP  T.H.E  QLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  3. 

hand.  IF  *  *  *  Our  Psalms,  according  to  their  existing  ar- 
rangement, first  attained  their  present  extent  after  the  cap- 
tivity, by  the  combination  of  several  larger  and  smaller  books 
of  Psalms,  t  The  materials  of  our  Daniel  w^ere  originally  se- 
parate, I  in  treatises  that  had  been  composed  in  difierent  dia- 
lects. *  *  *  The  golden  proverbs  of  Solomon  have  been  in- 
creased by  accessions  :  even  in  Hezekiah's  time,  there  were 
additions  made  to  them.  §  *  *  * 

If  we  should  at  once  proscribe,  as  the  works  of  impos- 
ture, books  in  which  all  parts  and  sections  do  not  evince  the 
same  age,  few  authentick  writings  of  the  Hebrews  would 
remain  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  a  great  number  of  the  classicks 
of  Grecian  and  Roman  antiquity  might  be  condemned.  Higher 
criticism  ||  must  fulfil  its  office  for  the  former  as  well  as  for 
the  latter,  before  we  venture  a  decision  on  their  authenticity  ; 
and  by  internal  considerations,  it  must  separate  what  has  been 
brought  together  by  various  times  and  authors.  Whoever  re- 
proaches the  biblical  critick,  or  merely  with  pious  concern 
heaves  a  sigh,  while  the  latter  is  thus  examining  a  book  of 
the  Old  Testament ;  he  must  either  be  wholly  unacquaint- 
ed with  antiquity,  and  profane  literature,  and  the  state  of 
things  at  the  time  ;  or  be  so  extremely  weak  in  intellectual  en- 
dowments, that  he  does  not  perceive  the  important  conse- 
quences of  an  omitted  test  of  this  kind,  and  the  invincible  host 
of  doubts,  which,  by  the  proposed  manner  of  proceeding,  it  is 
practicable  to  drive  from  their  strong  holds.  And  indeed, 
whoever  may  regard  such  a  test  as  useful,  important,  and 


l!  [  That  the  Pentateuch  is  not  a  compilation  of  recent  date,  see 
Jahn's  Introd.  to  the  O.  T.,  P.  n.  $.  11  ;  that  it  is  the  work  of  Moses, 
-§.  12 ;  that  it  has  not  been  re-written,  §.  13.     Tr.  J 

t  [  Eichhorn's  Introd.  to  the  O.  T.,  Vol.  v.  §  $.  624—626 ;  Jahn's  In- 
trod. to  the  O.  T.,  P.  II.  ^.  177.     Tr.  ] 

t  [  .Iahh 's  Introd.  to  the  O.  T.,  P.  ii.  ^.  154.     Tr.  ] 

^  [  The  design  of  the  asterisks  here  used  is  staled  iji  the  Prefatory 
Note  to  this  Treatise.     Tr.  j 

ij  [Some  judicious  observations,  on  the  use  of  Higher  Criticism,  are 
t<3  lie  found  in  Ja«n's  Ihtrod.  to  fhe  O.  T.,  P.  i.  6.  147-     Tr.  1 


AUXHENTICITV  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMEN-l',  §.  3.  'Si' 

necessary,  l)ut  from  over-pious  timidity  would  prescribe 
the  rule  to  the  critical  inquirer,  to  separate  there  only,  where 
external  evidences  afford  cause  for  a  separation  or  require  it ; 
he  might  still  belong  to  the  weak  in  the  republick  of  criticism  ; 
and  still  endanger  the  authenticity  of  most  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures. 

The  ancients  indeed  were  accustomed  sometimes  to  denote 
the  end  of  a  writing  by  a  subscription,  as  was  the  case,  for  in- 
stance, with  Moses  and  Jeremiah ;  and  thus  too  the  author  of 
an  ancient  Psalter  uses  the  words  :  "  The  Prayers  of  David 
are  ended."  *  Sometimes,  continuators  pointed  out,  by  a 
written  note  of  the  fact,  the  place  where  their  continuation 
commenced,  as  in  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  by  the  words  : 
"**  These  are  also  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  which  the  men  of 
Hezekiah  copied  out."  t  But  such  instances  ai-e  rare ;  and  for 
the  most  part,  we  must  endeavour  to  disclose  by  means  quite 
different,  and  by  the  most  subtle  operations  of  higher  criticism, 
what  in  the  lapse  of  time  may  have  been  prefatory,  what  in- 
serted, and  what  appended,  in  an  ancient  work. 


Ps.  Lxxii.  30.  t  Prov.  XXV.  I. 


S^       OF  THE 

'tjniversity; 


CANONICAL  AUTHORITY 


OF  THE 


SCRIPTURES   OF  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT 


§.4. 

Canonical  and  Apocryphal  Books, 

Soon  after  the  return  of  the  Jews  from  the  Babylonian 
tiaptivity,  a  collection  *  was  prepared,  of  all  writings  of  the 
Hebrews  then  extant,  which,  on  account  of  their  antiquity, 
contents,  and  authors,  became  revered  and  holy,  in  the  view 
of  all  the  members  of  the  new  government.  In  the  temple 
was  reposited  a  sacred  library  t  of  these  writings,  which,  for 


*  [  The  author  has  treated  of  this  subject  at  large,  in  his  Introd.  to  the 
O.  T.,  Vol.  I.  $.  5.  See  also  Prideaux,  in  his  Connexion.  Vol.  ii.  p.  i. 
B.  V.  Ann.  446  &  292.  On  the  fables  concerning  nSn^n  ripW,  the  Great 
Synagogue,  see  Buxtorf's  Tiberias,  C.  10.  11;  and  Bartolocoi  Bibl. 
Rabbinlca,  under  the  article  Chenescih  Hagghedola,  Part  iv.  pp.  2. 3. 4. 
Tr.  ] 

t  [  The  existence  of  a  Temple  Library  is  recognised  by  the  most  able 
criticks. 

(1.)  Very  early  traces  of  it  are  to  be  found,  befere  the  captivity: 

see  Deut.  xxxi.  26.    Josh.  xxiv.  26.     1  Sam.  x.  25. 
(2.)  Afttr  the  captivity,  mentioa  is  made  of  it:  Josephus,  Anliqq. 
B.  in.  C.  I.  $.  7 ;  B.  v.  C.  i.  f  17.      Wars  eftfie  Jaws,  B.  vii.  C. 
T.  $.5;  £1/6,$.  75. 
Sec  EicHH.  Introd.  to  theO.  T,,  Vol.  i-  f.S?  &DeWette  IntroA  to 
the  Bible,  Vol,  i.  $.  14.      Tr.  ] 


^0  UANOX  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  4. 

a  considerable  time  before  Christ,  (the  particular  year  is  un- 
known), (a)  ceased  to  be  further  enlarged.  (6) 

After  the  period  when  this  collection  had  been  made,  there 
arose  among  the  Jews  authors  of  a  different  kind,  historians, 
philosophers,  poets,  and  theological  romancers.  Now  there- 
fore they  had  books,  ver}^  unlike  in  value,  and  of  various  ages* 
The  earlier  were  held,  as  productions  of  Prophets,*  to  be  holy ; 


(a)  If  JosEPHCs  closes  the  Canon  with  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Lon- 
jgimanus,  this  is  his  private  opinion,  founded  on  his  view  of  the  Book  of 
Esther.     See  $.30. 

(6)  I  know  not  with  what  probability  it  can  be  asserted,  in  the  Zurich 
IjIBkaky  of  the  latest  theological,  philosophical,  and  polite  literature,  (Zt^r- 
cher  Bibliothek  der  neuesten  theologischen,  philosophischen,  und 
schonen  Litteratur),  B.  i.  S.  180.,  that  the  Jews  might  have  first  agreed 
as  to  the  number  of  their  sacred  books,  after  the  period  when  the  Talmud 
was  compiled.  If  there  might  not  have  been,  at  a  much  earlier  date, 
a  collection  settled  as  to  all  its  parts,  how  could  Josephus,  Philo,  and 
the  New  Testament  have  spoken  of  them,  in  terms  so  explicit,  or 
Josephus  have  made  a  distinction  of  two  kinds  Of  ancient  writings  of 
his  nation  ?  He  spoke  of  such  as  had  been  written,  to  the  time  of 
Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  and  might  justly  be  regarded  as  credible,  (or 
divine) ;  and  of  others,  composed  after  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  which 
were  not  esteemed  so  credible.  Must  it  not,  therefore,  have  been  ac- 
curately determined  how  many  belonged  to  each  class? 

'•  But  it  is  proved,  that  from  time  to  lime  there  may  have  been  as  vari- 
ous a  decision  on  the  sacred  books>  by  the  orthodox  Jews,  as  by  Chris- 
tians. Has  not  Daniel,  highly  esteemed  by  Josephus,  been  little  prized 
"by  other  Jews :  Ezekid  almost  rejected  from  the  Canon  ;  Esther  unduly 
censure  d  ?"  Certainly.  But  what  can  rereni  private  opinions  determine 
in  a  question,  where  the  subject  is  ancient  national  opinion  ?  And  we  know 
indeed,  what  considerations  have  prompted  them  to  their  unfavourable 
opinions  of  the  writings  mentioned.  The  contents  were  repugnant  to 
them;  from  history  they  knew  nothing  to  be  advanced  against  them. 
Would  they  not,  with  a  view  to  be  easily  rid  of  these  repugnant  books, 
have  appealed  to  the  times,  when  they  might  not  have  been  found  among 
the  number  of  sacred  national  writings  ;  could  they,  merely  by  a  faint 
tradition,  have  been  authorized  in  doing  so.-* 

*  [  On  the  meaning  of  the  word  Prophet,  consult  Gesenius'  Hebrew 
Lexicon,  (translated  by  Prof.  Gibbs,  &  also  by  Christopher  Leo),  &  Si- 
MONis'  Hebrew  Lexicon,  {Eichhorn^s  edition),  on  theivord  N''J3  ;  Eichh. 
Introd.  to  theO.  T.,  Vol.  i.  $.  9;  Jahn's  Introd.  to  the  O.  T.,  P.  n.  $.  83. 
note\  Eichhorn's  Library  of  Biblical  Literature,  (in  German),  Vol.  i 
Pt.  1.  p.  91 ;  &  Koppe's  Excursus  in,  appended  to  his  Commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesisins?  ii)  his  ZVbv,  Je^iam,  Vol.  vi,      Tr.  ] 


CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  4.  31 

the  later  were  not,  because  they  had  been  composed  in  times, 
when  there  was  no  longer  an  uninterrupted  prophetical  suc- 
cession, (c)  The  ancient  were  preserved  in  the  temple  (§.  28)  ; 
the  modern  were  not.  The  ancient  were  introduced  into  a 
publick  collection ;  the  modern,  as  I  think,  into  none  what-^ 
ever ;  at  least,  certainly  into  none  of  a  publick  nature.  And 
if  the  Alexandrian  Christians  had  not  been  such  great  ad- 
mirers of  them ;  if  they  had  not  added  them  to  the  manu- 
scripts of  the  Septuagint,  (in  the  original ^  if  composed  in 
the  Greek  language ;  and  in  a  Greek  translatioriy  if  the 
autograph  was  Hebrew :) — who  knows,  whether  we  might 
have  a  single  page  remaining,  of  all  the  modern  Jewish 
writers  ?  {d) 


(c)  JosEPHus,  contra  Ap.  lib.  i.  $.  8.,  thus  expresses  himself  in  reference 
to  these  later  Scriptures :  Ttis'toes  S't  ov^  ofAoiac  ^^iarctt  rtii  irgo  ctvraf, 
S'ta.  TO  fxii  yma^At  t«»  rdv  !r^o<p»Tay  et)i^i0»  S'lAifo^iif.  [  See  the  en- 
tire passage  quoted  below,  §.  29.       Tr.  ] 

(d)  The  Zurich  Library  makes  some  objections  to  this  also.  "  There 
are  proofs,"  it  says,  Th.  i.  S.  178.,  "that  the  Grecian  Jews,  from 
time  to  time,  have  conferred  on  more  writings  than  the  Hebrew  Jews 
possessed,  the  distinction  of  being  receivedas  ancient,  sacred,  and  revered 
monuments  of  the  ag-es  of  antiquity ;  nay,  of  being  regarded  even  as  re- 
cords dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Apostles,  Apostolick  Fathers, 
and  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  in  their  citations,  make  no  distinction 
bestween  v avIous  pseudepigrnphs,  and  the  canonical  writings  of  the  O.  T. 
Jude  quotes  the  Assumption  of  Moses  and  the  Books  of  Enoch ;  Paul,  the 
Apocalypse  of  Elijah,  and  probably  other  apocryphal  writings  ;  Matthew, 
an  apocryphal  work  of  Jeremiah,  which  the  Hebrew  Christians  in  the 
time  of  Jerome  still  possessed;  Clement,  the  spurious  Ezekiel ;  Hernias, 
the  Eldad  h  Medad.  It  is  clear,  that  the  converts  from  among  the 
Grecian  Jews  knew  and  revered  these  writings.  No  Apostles  first  de- 
livered or  commended  these  to  them.  Besides,  even  those  Fathers  who 
quote  the  Apocrypha  without  distinction,  Clement  &,  Origen,  did  not 
first  introdyce  this  relish  for  such  writings,  but  must  have  found  it  al~ 
ready  existing,  and  have  accommodated  themselves  to  it.  Other  Fa- 
thers, Irenaeus,  Tertollian,  Ambrose  of  Milan,  fcc,  might  never 
have  held  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  Books  of  Enoch,  Baruch,  Tohit, 
Fseudo-Esdras,  Additions  to  Daniel,  &c.,  to  be  sacred  and  inspired,  if 
these  books  had  not  been  commended  to  them  by  Jews." 

There  would  be  very  little  prospect  of  determining  our  Canon  of  the 
O.  T-,  if  this  were  so.     But 


3^  CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  4. 

At  a  late  period,  a  long  time  since  the  birth  of  Christ,  these 
two  kinds  of  writings  have  been  distinguished  by  appropriate 


1.  It  is  not  true,  that  the  Jews  maybe  supposed  to  have  made  no 
distinction,  between  the  ancient  sacred  books  of  their  nation,  and  what 
were  called  apocryphal,  Josephus,  who  was  acquainted  however  even 
with  the  Grecian  Jews,  whose  Version  he  every  where  adopts  in  his 
writings,  says  in  very  general  terms  of  all  the  Jews  at  large  :  "  We 
have  but  22  books,  which  were  composed  up  to  the  time  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus.  Since  Artaxerxes,  up  to  our  times,  much  indeed  has  been 
•written ;  but,  among  us,  all  these  modern  writings  have  not  by  any 
means  the  authority  of  the  ancient."  And  if  these  recent  works  were 
viewed  by  the  Grecian  Jews,  as  sacred  records,  as  venerable,  as  die* 
tated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  how  then  does  it  happen,  that  the  Grecian 
Jew  Philo  does  not  allegorize  them,  as  he  does  those  Scriptures  to  which 
he  attributes  a  divine  origin  ? 

2.  It  is  not  true,  that  the  Apostles  may  be  supposed  to  have  made 
710  distinction  between  Canonical  and  Apocryphal  writings.  For  how 
could  it  happen,  that  among  so  many  citations  of  the  O,  T.  in  the  New% 
so  few  passages  are  evidently  taken  from  the  Apocrypha  ?  If  held  in  the 
same  estimation,  they  would  have  been  as  much  used. 

3.  It  is  NOT  true,  that  from  the  value  which  Jewish  Christians  at- 
tributed to  Apocrypha,  it  may  be  inferred,  that  the  Jews  rankedthem  with 
their  sacred  Scriptures.  We  know  indeed  that  the  Jewish  Christians 
held  them  in  the  highest  esteem,  because  they  yielded  so  much  support 
to  their  visionary  ideas,  hopes  and  expectations.  And  if  we  compare 
their  estimate  with  the  description  that  Josephus  gives,  of  the  estimate 
which  his  nation  may  be  presumed  to  have  set  upon  them,  it  is  evident, 
how  many  steps  the  Christians  advanced  further  than  the  'Jews  !  And 
from  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers  concerning  them,  what  can  be  in- 
ferred, in  respect  to  the  opinions  of  the  Jews  ?  Must  those  of  the  latter 
have  also  been  those  of  iha  former  ? 

But  II.  "In  the  Greek  collection  of  the  Scriptures  are  found  many 
apocryphal  writings,  as  the  W^isdom  of  Solomon,  the  third  book  of  Es- 
dras,  Tobit,  Baruch,  Additions  to  Daniel  and  Esther.  This  is  proved, 
by  the  use  which  Josephus  himself,  (no  doubt  to  please  the  Grecian  Jews), 
made  of  these  writings,  and  even  by  the  translations  of  them  which  were 
made  at  a  very  early  period,  for  the  use  of  the  Western  Churches;  and 
also  by  the  Canonical  authority,  which  various  councils  attribute  to 
them." 

1.  In  this  objection,  it  is  alleged  without  proof,  that  even  before  the 
birth  of  Christ,  the  Apocrypha  xvere  appended  to  the  Greek  Bible :  but 
from  what  shall  this  be  inferred?  From  the  fact,  perhaps,  that 
Josephus  makes  use  of  them  ?  Does  his  use  of  them  prove  any  more, 
than  merely  that  they  were  then  extant  in  that  Greek  Vei-sion  which  we 
now  possess?     Cojuld  they  not  have  been  in  his  hands  in  Greek,  sepa- 


CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.-4.  33 

names,  derived  chiefly  from  the  use  which  was  made  pf  the 
writings :  the  earUer  were  called  Canonical  ;  the  more  re- 
cent, Apocryphal  Books.  And  the  whole  collection  of  the 
former  was  comprehended  under  the  appellation:  Canon 
OP  THE  Old  Testament. 


orately  ?  And  as  Philo  and  the  New  Testament  make  so  little  use  of 
the  Apocrypha,  is  it  at  all  probable,  that  they  were  then  a  part  of  the 
Greek  Bible  ?  Would  they  not,  in  this  case,  have  been  much  better 
known  to  Philo,  and  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament,  than  we  ac- 
tually discover?  Ought  not  Christians,  those  great  admirers  of  them, 
to  have  first  assigned  to  them  this  place  ?  Yet  admitting,  that  even  the 
ancient  Grecian  Jews  before  Christ  may  perhaps  have  done  this,  still 
nothing  results  in  opposition  to  the  previously  alleged  extent  of  the  He- 
brew Canon,  as  we  have  adopted  only  the  Palestine,  and  not  the  Egyp- 
tian. 

2.  And  what  is  proved  by  early  Latin  Versions  of  these  Apocrypha, 
made  for  the  use  of  the  Western  Church  1  What  but  this,  which  no  one 
will  doubt,  that  even  at  an  early  period,  it  held  these  Versions  in  great 
esteem  ?  What  is  proved  by  the  authority  of  Councils,  which  have  at- 
tributed Canonical  Authority  to  these  Apocrypha  ?  What  but  this,  that 
in  their  estimate  of  these  Scriptures,  they  went  still  further  than  the 
early  Christians,  and  even  attributed  to  them  what  the  latter,  (as  far  as 
we  know,)  never  did  attribute  ? 

III.  "  The  Egyptian  Jews  have  invented  fables,  to  gain  authority  for 
the  spurious  writings  which  they  had  forged,  from  a  propensity  to  fana- 
ticism and  sectarism.  The  Jew  who  wrote  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras, 
intending  to  excite  among  his  nation,  by  a  fictitious  narrative,  the 
hopes  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  sets  forth  an  account  of  seventy  con- 
cealed books,  which  pui-ported  to  have  been  dictated  to  Ezra  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.  And  this  tradition  of  70  Apocrypha  is  to  be  found  also 
in  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus.  That  no  Christian  wrote  the  fourth  book 
of  Esdras,  in  its  most  ancient  form,  is  clear  fi-om  many  evidences,  al- 
though Christians  have  interpolated  it,  and  enlarged  it  by  additions." 
Even  this  representation  of  the  origin  of  the  fourth  book  of  Esdras,  (to 
which,  however,  much  might  be  objected,)  being  assumed,  because  the 
examination  of  it  might  not  here  be  in  place,  what  follows  from  all  this, 
but  merely  that  particular  Jews  may  have  put  every  thing  in  operation, 
to  acquire  for  their  written  productions  great  authority  ?  Does  it  even 
prove,  that  all  other  Jews  may  have  assented  ? — that  all,  to  approve  of 
these  fables,  may  have  even  ascribed  to  the  works  themselves  a  divine 
origin  ?  But  I  forbear — not  to  contend  too  long  against  objections^ 
which  have  so  little  to  do  with  the  positions  maintained  ! 


34  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,    §.,!>. 

JVhat  i&  the  meaning  of  the  word  Canonical  '. 

The  word  Kavwv  had  long  been  in  use  among  the  early 
Ecclesiastical  writers,  and  in  very  general  acceptations,  before 
it  was  transferred  to  a  collection  of  Holy  Scriptures. 

1.  it  often  meant  no  more  than  " a  book,"  and  a  "cata- 
logue" generally;  (e)  but  then,  in  particular — 

2.  A  "  Catalogue  of  things  which  belonged  to  the  Church,'' 
or  a  "Book,  that  served  in  general  for  the  use  of  the 
Church."  (/)  Hence  a  Collection  of  Hymns,  which  were 
to  be  sung  on  festivals,  {g)  as  also  a  List,  in  which  were  in- 
troduced the  names  of  persons  belonging  to  the  Church,  ac- 
quired the  name  Kavwv.  (h)  The  word  was  used  in  a  sense 
yet  more  limited,  of 

3.  A  "  Publickly  approved  Catalogue  of  all  the  Books, 
that  might  be  read  in  publick  assemblies  of  Christians,  for 
instruction  and  edifioation."  (i)  Finally,  but  not  until  very 
recent  times,  it  has  comprised  immediately 

4.  A  "  Collection  of  divine  and  inspired  writings."  (k) 
The  last  signification  most  modern  scholars  have  adopted. 

They  use,  therefore,  Canonical  and  Inspired,  (xavovixo^  and 


(e)  Hence  the  diminutive  Kotvsytcy  means  simply  libdlus.  See  Suidas 
on  the  word  Knvovtov.  M.  Frii>.  Fkuiun.  Druk,  diss,  deratione  historic^ 
canonis  scribendae.     Tub.  1778,  4. 

(J)  Synodus  Laodic.     Canon  42. 

(g)  Stjicer,  in  his  Thes.  Eccles.,  T.  ii.  p.  40.,  has  this  meaning,  with 
many  examples  from  the  Fathers.  Thus,  for  example,  Zonaras  says, 
ad  Canon.  Alhanasii  Damasceni:  K«tvay  hiytTAi,  ot*  ci^ia-f^ivov 

i^ei    TO   iUfXiTgOV   £  V  V  i  at.    0)  S"  A  7  c    auVTi^oufJievoy . 

(A)  Socrates  Hist.  EccL,  lib.  i.  c.  17.  reU  rra^Bhovc  Tils  dyayty^*f/.fJLi- 
»<€  b  Tfp  T&y  kmKtKxitti  Kav  6v  I .  See  DvFRE5NE,glossar.  mediae  etin- 
finiae  Graecitaiis.  p.  579. 

(i)  See  SuiCER  Thes.  Eccles.  on  the  word  Kdvciv ;  or  Cotta  ad  Gerhardi 
hcos  theol,  T.  u.  p.  244. 

(k)  SuicER  on  the  word  Kjcvwv.  Fricb  de  cura  vet.  eccl.  drca  Cano- 
nem.  p.  34  ss.  [  See  also,  Lardner's  Supplement  to  the  Second  Part 
of  thft  Gosp.  Hist..  Ch,  r.  Sect.  iii.       Tr.  J 


CAN'ON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  5.  G.  35 

ho'nMBv^oc,)  as  perfect  synonymes.  Only  a  few  understand  by 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  "  Collection  of  sacred 
and  inspired  writings,  which  Christ  and  his  Apostles  may  have 
recognised  as  sacred  and  inspired," 

§.  6. 
IVhat  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  Apocryphal  '( 

The  Apocryphal  are  so  called,  in  opposition  to  the  Ca- 
nonical Scriptures. 

1.  At  first,  "  Obscurely  written  Books  "  were  called  apo- 
ciyphal.  (/)  As  such  writings  were  then  above  the  capacity 
of  men  in  general,  the  heads  of  the  Church  accordingly  pro- 
hibited their  being  read  in  publick  assemblies  of  Christians ; 
yet  not  only  were  the  teachers  not  forbidden  to  read  them, 
but,  on  thai  account,  to  study  them  with  diligence  had  been 
made  their  express  duty.  Hence,  among  apocryphal  writ- 
ings, in  opposition  to  canonical,  were  comprised 

2.  Such  books  as  were  "  Set  aside,  and  from  which  no- 
thing might  be  publickly  read."  (m) 


{I)  SuiDAs  on  the  word  *«gt«t/«r«c.  Epiphanius,  Aacrms  LI;  Druk, 
i,  c.  p.  8,  Compare  with  this  the  remark  of  Semler,  in  his  Treatise  on 
afree  examination  of  the  Canon,  (Abhandlung  von  freyer  Untersuchung 
desKanons,)  Th.  i.  S.  10,,  that  ctVo'jtgy^xss  may  sometimes  be  applied  to  a 
writing,  which  only  experienced  Christians  were  permitted  to  read  for 
their  instruction,  but  which  was  concealed  from  others. 

(m)  RuFFiN,  Expositio  Symholi  inter  0pp.  Cypriuni,  p.  26;  Cyril, 
Catech.  iv.  p.  68,  ed.  Toutt.  In  this  case  indeed,  aV({jcgo<p5?  accords 
with  the  Rabbinical  V^^  ,  which  denotes  writings  set  aside,  that 
might  notbe  read  in  the  synagogues ;  at  onetime,  because  they  had  been 
inaccurately  written ;  and  at  another,  because  their  contents  were  some- 
what difficult  to  be  understood.  Thus  the  later  Jews  placed  among  the 
yy^A,  which  ought  not  to  be  read,  the  beginning  of  Genesis,  (in  which  a 
creation  in  six  days,  so  adapted  to  human  views,  was  repugnant  to 
them) ;  the  Song  of  Solomon,  (the  contents  of  which  they  thought  hazard- 
ous for  young  persons ;)  Ezekicl  i.  and  xl. — xlviii.  (because  the  contents 
of  these  chapters  were  obscure  to  them,  and  the  temple  ofEzekid  did  not 
correspond  with  their  second  temple.)  See  Hottinger,  Thet,  Phil.,  p. 
521 ;  and  Castell's  &  Buxtorf's  Lexicons,  at  these  words.    But  we  are 


3tJ  CAXOA'  OF  ThK  old  TEStAMENT*  §.  6.  *. 

3.  Even  "Supposititious  Writings,"  (Pseudepigrapha,)  \\ei*e 
sometimes  called  apocryphal,  from  similar  considerations,  as 
no  publick  use  would  be  admitted,  of  such  miserable  produc- 
tions as  the  Books  of  Adam,  Methuselah,  Enoch,  and  the  like,  (n) 
Finally,  canonical  and  inspired  having  been  used  as  syno- 
nymes,  by  an  apocryphal  book  was  understood 

4.  "  A  writing  not  inspired."  The  word  acquired  this 
sense  at  a  very  late  period,  and  perhaps  not  before  Jerome. 
He  writes,  however,  in  his  preface  to  Tobit :  Libruni 
Tobiae,  quern  Hebraei  de  catalogo  divinarum  scripturarum 
secantes,  his,  qua3  apocrypha  memorant,  manciparunt. 
[  The  Book  of  Tobit,  which  the  Hebrews,  removing  it  from 
the  Catalogue  of  Sacred  Scriptures,  have  transferred  to  these, 
which  they  call  apocrypha.      TV.  ] 

§.  7.       ■ 

Reviezi^  of  this  division  of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  into 
Canonical  arid  Apocryphal. 

Thus  varied  in  signification  are  the  words  canonical  and 
apocryphal.  On  this  account,  the  learned  of  modern  times, 
who  have  entered  into  investigations  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament,  might  have  been  expected  only  with  accuracy  to 
determine  what  signification  they  adopted.  Unfortunately, 
this  has  not  always  been  the  case,  and  hence  their  investiga- 
tions have  often  been  devoid  of  the  precision  required. 

It  might  have  been  desirable,  that  the  expression  Canon, 
on  this  account,  had  never  been  used  in  reference  to  the  Old 
Testament.  A  word  so  various  in  signification  must  give 
rise  to  misapprehensions  ;  and  unhappily,  the  most  that  it  has 


not  to  believe  for  this  reason,  that  the  ancient  Jews  understood  by  VU 
a  book  not  canonical. 

(n)  Athanasius,  in  the  Synopsis  S.  S.,  T.  ii.  p.  154.  A  number  of 
passages,  that  are  here  appropriate  as  illustrations,  Fabricius  has  col- 
lected in  his  Cod.  Pseudep.  V.  T. ;  T.  ii.  p.  30a 


CANOX  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  7.  37 

received,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  have  been  inappropriate  to  the 
Old  Testament. 

1.  If  by  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  understood 
the  "  Collection  of  sacred  and  inspired  writings  of  the  Jews 
in  the  period  before  the  birth  of  Christ,"  then  this  was  a  sigi- 
nification  which  most  Christian  Writers  did  not  understand 
by  it ;  and  difficulties  upon  difficulties  arrested  the  inquirer, 
who  examined  the  Fathers  on  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. He  found,  for  instance,  that  Judith,  Tobit,  2  Books  of 
Maccabees,  5  Books  of  Solomon,  and  others,  were  enumerated 
among  the  CanoniccB  Scriptures,  (o)  Alarmed  at  this  ap- 
pearance, he  either  gave  up  the  whole  investigation;  or 
he  was  even  willing  to  carry  it  on,  did  he  but  derive 
from  it  the  conclusion :  our  present  Canon  may  have  been 
of  recent  origin,  and  not  determined  in  ancient  times,  as  re- 
gards all  its  portions,  large  and  small,  (p) 

2.  Or,  if  by  the  Canon 'of  the  Old  Testament  was  under- 
stood the  "  Books  of  the  Jews  before  the  time  of  Christ,  that 
were  permitted  to  be  read  in  publick  ;"  this  signification  again, 
in  reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  is  neither  appHcable  nor 
adequate.  Among  whom  could  the  reading  of  these  Scrip- 
tures have  been  allowed  ?     Among  Jews  or  Christians  ? 

Among  Jews  ?  In  this  case,  there  might  have  been  nothing 
more  uncertain,  than  the  number  of  the  books  deemed  ca- 
nonical ;  for  they  did  not  use  as  synonymes,  canonical 
books,  and  books  to  he  puhlickly  read.  The  Song  of 
Solomon,  for  instance,  they  regarded  as  a  sacred  national 
writing,  and  yet  it  had  been  forbidden  to  make  a  pub- 
lick  use  of  it  in  the  synagogues  !  {q)      There  ought  to  have 


(o)  CoNciL.  Cakthag.  3.  Can.  47.  of  the  year  397.  ''Placuit,  ut 
praeter  canonicas  scriptiiras  nihil  in  ecclesia  legatur  sub  nomine  scriptu- 
rarum  divinarum ;  sunt  autem  canonic^  scriptures :  Genesis,  Exodus/ 
Leviticus,  Numeri,  Deuteronomium,  Jesus  Nave,  Judicum,  Ruth,  Regno ^ 
rum  libri3.,  Job,  Psalmorum  unus,  Salomonis  libri  quinque,  libri  12  pro- 
phetarum  minorum,  item  lesaias,  Jeremias,  Ezech.,  Daniel,  Tobias, 
Judith,  Esdrae  libri  2.,  Maecabaeorum  libri  2. 

(p)  Semler's  Treatise  on  a  free  esamination  of  the  Canon,  [  quoted 
before  in  note  (l).  ]    Th.  i.  S.  14.  s. 

{q)  Origex,  in  his  ^raf.  ad  Canlic.  Canlicontm. 


38  CA^'ON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAA^ENT,  §.  7.  8. 

been  admitted  into  the  Canon,  in  this  case,  only  the  Five 
Books  of  Moses,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Book  of  Esther,  which 
was  read  with  pecuhar  solemnities  on  the  feast  of  Purim  ;  but 
not  the  Psalms,  not  the  Proverbs,  not  Job,  and  the  Historical 
Books, 

Was  it  among  Christians  then  ?  In  this  case,  the  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament  might  have  been  yet  more  uncertain. 
It  might  have  been  settled — at  a  time,  when  it  could  no 
longer  be  known,  which  books  were  to  be  esteemed  canoni- 
cal ;  for  it  might  have  been  reduced  to  order  after  the  lapse 
of  the  first  ages  that  followed  the  birth  of  Christ : — among  a 
class  of  men,  from  which  could  be  expected  no  sure  deter- 
mination of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament ;  for  it  must 
be  determined,  not  by  Christians,  but  by  Jews : — without 
settled  principles,  by  which  the  authority  of  a  book  could  be 
examined  ;  for  the  New  Testament  does  not  pronounce  upon 
the  subject.  The  selection  depended,  therefore,  upon  mere 
caprice,  and  was  directed,  it  may  be,  by  pious  considerations 
which  are  often  very  doubtful,  or  else  by  uncertain  authorities. 
In  fine,  if  we  examine  the  existing  Catalogues  of  the  Writings 
of  the  Old  Testament,  permitted  to  be  publickly  read  among 
Christians,  we  find  even  Judith,  and  Tobit,  and  other  writings 
inserted,  which,  for  various  reasons,  can  be  allowed  no  ca- 
nonical authority. — So  unstable  is  the  foundation,  on  which  is 
commonly  reared  the  important  investigation  of  the  Canon  of 
the  Old  Testament ! 


§.8. 

In  what  sense  Canoij  op  the  Old  Testament  is  understood, 
in  this  investigation. 

We  proceed,  therefore,  in  our  examination  of  the  subject, 
merely  from  that  time,  when  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  in  their 
teaching,  pointed  back  to  the  instruction  which  had  been  re- 
corded in  the  Old  Testament.  At  that  period,  there  was  in 
Palestine  a  Collection,  which  made  up  a  complete  whole,  and, 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  8.  9.         39 

in  the  New  Testament,  was  sometimes  comprised  under  the 
appellation  Scripture,  or  Holy  Scriptures ;  sometimes  para- 
phrased by  Law  and  Prophets,  or  by  Law,  Prophets,  and 
Psalms.  *  We  shall  consider  this  Collection  the  Canon  .f  the 
Old  Testament.  In  this  view,  we  set  aside  all  theological  ajid 
doctrinal  considerations,  and  our  investigation  becomes,  as  it 
should  be — merely  historical,  (r) 


Of  the  Egyptian  and  Palestine  Canon  m  general. 

After  the  Babylonian  captivity,  the  Jews  were  divided,  m 
reference  to  the  principal  countries  of  their  settlement,  into 
Egyptian  and  Palestine.  In  both,  they  had  a  Collection  of 
sacred  national  writings.  And  it  is  worth  while  to  inquire, 
whether  this  Collection  was  of  the  same  or  of  a  different  ex- 
tent in  the  two  countries,  and  what  books  and  how  many  it 
may  have  contained,  both  in  Egypt,  and  also  in  Palestine. 

According  to  our  purpose,  (§.  8.)  we  must  indeed  recur 
principally  to  Palestine,  and  endeavour  to  ascertain  the  con- 
stituent parts  of  the  Palestine  Canon,  at  the  time  of  Christ 
and  the  Apostles.  An  examination  of  the  Egyptian  Canon, 
therefore,  might  seem  needless  ;  particularly  as  the  question 


*  [  The  Scriptures  of  the  0.  T.  are  called  ^  >§«?«,  "  the  Scripture," 
John,  X.  35.  compare  34;  .i  Tim.  iii.  16;  U^d  y^sL/ufjiaTet,  "Holy 
Scriptures,"  ii  Tim.  in.  15 ;  o  vd/uos  Knit  cj  v^ixpiirctt  "  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,"  Acts.  xiii.  15;  o  v6/uo5  Maxrias,  Kat  tt^of^rsti,  ndi 
■^aXfAot,  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms.  Luke,  xxiv.  44.  Storr, 
in  his  Doctrinal  Theology  {translated  by  Prof.  Schmitcker)  Vol.  i.  B.  i. 
§.  14,  has  a  concise  and  admirable  view  of  the  argument  from  the  New 
Testament,  that  the  Jewish  Canon,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the 
Apnstles,  contained  the  same  books  which  now  constitute  our  O.  T. 
Scriptures.       Tr.  ] 

(r)  The  Canon  oj  the  O.  T. ;  a  Treatise  in  Camerer's  Theological  & 
Critical  Essays,  (Theologischea  und  kritischen  Versuchen.)  Stutt^ard, 
1794.  8. 


40  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  9. 

in  regard  to  that  of  Palestine  would  not  yet  have  been  settled ; 
granting  that  we  might  be  able  to  present  a  complete  account 
of  the  former.  Yet  without  tliis,  the  history  of  the  Canon 
would  remain  defective :  without  this,  we  should  be  neces- 
sarily deprived  of  many  illustrations,  in  investigating  the 
Canon  of  Palestine.  In  fine,  if  a  complete  account  of  the 
Egyptian  Canon  were  to  be  found  any  where,  and  were  it  to 
agree  in  all  its  parts  with  that  of  Palestine  ;  then,  to  the  satis- 
faction of  every  inquirer  after  truth,  we  should  have  a  decisive 
answer  to  the  important  question  :  Had  the  Jews,  before  the 
time  of  Christ,  a  Collection  settled  as  to  all  its  parts  great  and 
small,  or  a  complete  Canon  ? 

But  should  there  be  discovered,  neither  now  nor  henceforth, 
such  fragments  of  the  Alexandrian  Canon,  that  a  complete 
whole  may  be  collected  from  them,  it  were  truly  ever  to  be 
lamented,  that  rapacious  time  even  here  manifested  its  destruc- 
tive influence.  But  the  contents  of  the  Canon  will  not,  on 
this  account,  be  more  uncertain.  Should  even  traces  be  per- 
ceived, that  the  Egyptian  Jews  might  evidently  have  had 
Apocryphal  writings  in  their  Canon,  these  would  be  just  as 
little  raised  to  the  authority  of  canonical  books  on  this  ac- 
count, as  the  Apocrypha,  which  the  authority  of  the  Fathers 
placed  among  the  Canoniccs  ScripiurcB.  (§.  7.)  The  ques- 
tion does  not  relate  to  Ecclesiastical  Fathers,  but  Jews,  and 
especially  Jews  of  Palestine.  (§.  8.)  Just  as  the  Samari- 
tans, by  certain  incidents,  acquired  a  false  Joshua,  which 
they  ranked  with  the  Five  Books  of  Moses ;  so  indeed 
might  similar  incidents  in  Eygpt  have  elevated  to  a  place 
among  the  Canonical  Books,  one  or  several  that  were  apo- 
crypha. 


'CANON  P*'  THE  OLD   I'ES-V AMEUt,  §.  10.  \X 

L  The  Egyptian'  and  Palestine  Jews  had  the 

SAME   CaNON', 


.  10. 


•First  ground  of  Conjeciurt. 

Still  it  is  very  probable  from  many  considerations,  that  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  in  Egypt  and  that  in  Palestine 
were  similar. 

I.  The  relation,  in  wliich  the  Jews  in  the  two  countries 
stood  to  each  other,  readily  admits  of  this  presumption.  Both, 
although  at  no  period  in  an  intimate,  were  yet  always  in  some 
connexion,  and  thus  at  times  in  a  rehgious  fellowship,  {s)  Both 
were  emulous  to  be  entirely  alike.  The  Egyptians  built  a 
temple,  after  the  model  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  with 
the  same  solemnities  practised  their  religion  there.  In  their 
synagogues,  the  Egyptians  read  the  Five  Books  of  Moses  as 
in  Palestine.  But  when  an  intolerant  edict  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  banished  the  use  of  the  books  of  Moses  from  the 
synagogues  in  Palestine,  and  they  began  there,  from  necessity, 
to  read  out  of  the  Prophets ;  and  afterward,  when  the  in- 


(s)  Notwithstanding  the  jealousy  that  prevailed  between  the  Jews  in 
the  two  countries,  the  religious  fellowship  proceeded  sometimes  to  a  re- 
markable extent.  Thus  Philo  himself,  the  celebrated  writer,  was  once 
sent  to  Jerusalem,  to  present  offerings  in  the  temple  there,  in  the  name 
of  his  brethren.  Philo,  T.  2.  0pp.  p.  646.  ed.  Mang.;  or  in  Euse- 
Bios praep. ecang. lib.  viii.  c.  14.  p,  o'JS.  ed.  Paris.  T»f  lu^lus  iiti  BxKaLvrti 
TTohli  Wiv,  'AT*«X£rV  oyojux-  jSi'd^KgiOf  b  ^^vryi  kx6'  o»  ^^6vot  il;  to  Trxr^aov 

/i^ov  8r«?X5/X)»v   6v^6v.itci  T.6  Ksti    (ivcraav.  tlixiyjtv^i  Tt  Tri>.UxSav  v\tiQc( 

iSa*o-iu«y ^Yet  this  was  something  extraordinary,    as  the  Egyptian 

Jews  had  their  own  temple  ;  and  after  its  erection,  offerings  were  made 
there,  as  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  And  I  know  not  how  to  believe, 
that  the  Egyptian  Jews  should  have  ordinarily  sent  offerings  to  Jeru- 
salem, as  HoRNEMA>-N  assumcs,  dt  canone  Philonis,  p.  10.  The  Jews  of 
Home,  and  Italy  in  general  might  do  so,  because  they  had  no  temple  in 
^b.o?e  parts;  but  this  reason  does  not  apply  to  lb'?  Jeus  in  Egvpf-. 


42        CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  10.  IL 

terdiction  ceased,  read  on  every  Sabbath  both  Moses  and 
the  Prophets ;  the  emulation  of  the  Egyptian  Jews  did  not 
admit  of  their  being  behindhand  in  these  particulars.  In  fine, 
Jerusalem  was  constantly  the  city,  to  which  the  Jews  traced 
every  thing ;  the  manners  and  customs  of  that  place  were  the 
originals  which  they  always  copied  ;  it  was  the  rallying  point 
of  all  Jews  who  were  dispersed  in  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa — 
and  thus  too  of  the  Egyptian.  (/)  In  such  circumstances, 
should  we  not  conjecture,  {u)  that  the  Jews  in  the  two  countries 
might  have  agreed,  in  regard  to  the  Collection  of  their  ancient 
sacred  national  books  ? 


§.  11. 

Second  ground  of  Conjecture, 

II.  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach  and  PniLO.the  New  Testa- 
ment and  Josephus,  writers  of  Palestine  and  Egypt  therefore^ 


(/)  The  fact  is  well  known.  However,  I  refer  to  Hornemann,  de 
canone  Phil.  p.  8.,  who  has  shown  this  by  some  passages  from  Philo. 
0pp.  T.  II.  p.  524.  Mang.  p.  971.  ed.  Frank/.  [  This  reference  is  very- 
apposite.  "  A  single  region  cannot  contain  the  Jews,  on  account  of 
their  multitude.  Wherefore,  they  inhabit  the  most  numerous  and 
flourishing  of  those  in  Europe  and  Asia,  both  islands  and  continentsF; 
considering  the  Holy  City,  {ti^ciroxiv),  (in  which  stands  the  sacred 
temple  of  the  Most  High  God,)  as  their  metropolis."      TV.  ] 

(m)  Thus  it  stands  word  for  word  in  the  former  editions.  It  is  not  in- 
tended, by  the  above  reasoning,  to  prove  any  thing;;  not  to  decide  as  a 
judge ;  it  is  only  intended  to  derive  from  it  the  conjecture,  that  the  Egyp- 
tian and  the  Palestine  Canon  may  have  been  of  like  extent.  If  then  the 
Zurich  Library,  Th.  i.  S.  178.  objects:  "Notwithstanding  the  uni(y 
of  the  Palestine  and  Egyptian  Jews,  yet  the  Alexandrian  synagogues 
might  boast  of  a  more  extensive  collection  of  the  sacred  writings, 
among  which  were  even  writings  of  Enoch,  Moses,  &c. ;"  what  shall  be 
said  in  reply?  A  might  is  objected,  the  denial  of  which  could  not  enter 
the  mind  of  any  one.  The  Egyptian  synagogues,  it  is  alleged,  might  in» 
deed  have  boasted  of  a  more  extensive  collection  of  the  sacred  writing?, 
although  no  trace  of  it  is  found.  The  spurious  writings  of  Enoch  and 
Moses  are  named,  as  if  these  may  have  been  received  into  their 
synagogues,  although  there  is  not  the  remotest  cause,  even  for  conjec- 
turing this  ?    What,  in  such  circumstances,  may  lie  eaid  in  reply  ^ 


■♦ 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  11.  i^V 

agree  in  calling  their  ancient  sacred  books  by  a  periphrasis, 
if  not  in  the  same  words ^  yet  in  accordance  with  the  main  sub- 
ject and  contents,  by  the  name  "  Law,  prophets,  and  other 
writings." 

1.  Jesus,  the  Grandson  of  Sirach,  after  his  arrival  in  Egypt, 
about  the  year  140  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  translated  the 
precepts  of  his  Grandfather  from  Hebrew  into  Greek.  And 
in  the  Former  Prologue,  (of  which,  if  we  may  decide  from  in- 
ternal evidences,  he  is  the  author),  he  speaks  of  the  sacred 
books  of  his  nation,  which  had  been  translated  into  Greek 
even  before  his  time,  and  he  calls  them  :  "  Laiv,  Prophets,  and 
the  rest  of  the  Books ^  "  Let  me  entreat  you,"  he  says,  (r) 
"  to  read  it,  (2.  e.  his  translation)  with  favour  and  attention, 
and  to  pardon  us,  wherein  we  may  seem  to  come  short  of 
some  words  which  we  have  laboured  to  interpret.  For 
the  same  things  uttered  in  Hebrew,  and  translated  into  another 
tongue,  have  not  the  same  force  in  them :  and  not  only  these 
things,  but  the  law  itself,  and  the  prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the 
books  have  no  small  difference,  when  they  are  spoken  in  their 
own  language."  (w)     The  Collection  of  the  Hebrew  Books  is 


(t;)  In  the  Former  Prologue 0  tojutf,  k^i  al  ?rgo<^»Ts7at/,  Kxt  tx 

i^itTTA  Tar  ^ifihimi  ab  (xu^iv  t^^ii  tyii  J*i«?«gair  sr  jotj/TcTc  Xiyo^uiv*.  That 
this  Prologue  must  be  very  ancient,  appears  from  this,  among  other  rea- 
sons,  that  we  find  in  it  the  Hagiographa,  (CD'3=inD,)  called  by  a  peri- 
phrasis ra  A6i:rx  Tuv  0i0\iaiv,  [the  rest  of  the  books.  ]  Before  the  birth 
of  Christ,  there  was  no  general  name,  w'hich  comprehended  all  those 
writings,  that  are  now  called  Hagiographa.  They  must,  therefore,  have 
always  been  named  by  a  periphrasis.  [  In  H.E.  G.  Paulus'  Repertory 
for  Biblical  and  Oriental  Literature,  (Repertoriuai  fiir  bibl.  und  orient. 
Litteratur^,  Vol.  ii.  Article  v.,  pp.  225 — 247,  is  a  comprehensive  and 
able  Dissertation  (in  German)  by  Dr.  Storr,  on  the  earliest  division  of 
the  books  of  the  O.  T.  See  also  our  author's  Introd.  to  the  0.  T.,  Vol. 
1.  §.  8  ;  Jahn's  Introd.  to  the  O.  T.,  P.  i.  $  §.  1.  103.  Bertholdt's 
Introd.  to  the  O.  &  N.  T.  (in  German)  Vol.  i.  §  §.  18.  19;  and  De 
Wette's  Introd.  to  the  Bible,  Vol.  i.  $  §.  7.  10.       Tr.  ] 

(w)  Thus,  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach  clearly  distinguishes  the  moral 
sentences  of  his  grandfather,  (this  apocryphal  book  as  it  is  called),  fronj 
the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the  Books.  Can  he  therefore  have 
reckoned  the  Hehreio  original  of  the  precepts  among  the  rest  of  tfp& 
Bookg,  (a§  be  emitles  the  H^giograpKa.)  or  have  only  conjectured,  that 


44  CANON  OF  TIJE  OLl>  T/KSTAMENT,  §.  11. 

set  forth  in  this  representation,  just  as  it  existed  at  that  time  in 
a  Greek  Version  made  in  Egypt ;  nothing  is  more  probable, 
therefore,  than  that  in  this  passage  we  have  to  look  for  a  peri- 
phrasis of  the  Canon  of  the  Egyptian  Jews. 

In  another  passage  of  this  Prologue,  the  translator  com- 
mends Iiis  grandfather,  for  the  study  of  the  "  Law,  the  Prophets, 
and  the  rest  of  the  Books  "  of  his  nation,  (x)  Now  his  grand- 
father lived  in  Palestine,  and  studied  the  Palestine  Canon. 
As  he  here  speaks,  therefore,  of  the  Palestine  Canon,  as  well 
as  of  the  Egyptian,  in  the  very  same  words,  does  it  not  follow, 
that  the  Jews  in  both  countries  may  have  had  the  same  Canon  T 
If  that  of  Palestine  was  different  from  that  of  Egypt,  then  Jesus 
the  Son  of  Sirach  must  have  been  led  to  take  hotice  of  this, 
by  adding  a  word  or  two,  or  by  changing  the  expression,  that 
he  might  speak  the  more  distinctly  for  his  immediate  readers 
the  Egyptians. 

2.  According  to  Philo  of  Alexandria,  the  Therapeutae,  a 
fanatical  sect  of  Jews  in  Egypt,  read  in  their  religious  as- 
semblies, not  the  fanatical  writings  of  the  founders  of  their 
sect,  but — "  Holy  Scriptures,"  as  the  "  Law,  Oracles  of  the 
Prophets,  Psalms  of  Praise  to  God,  and  other  Books,  by  which, 
knowledge  and  the  fear  of  God  are  promoted  and  perfect- 
ed." iy)    Here  Philo  speaks,  not  indeed  of  the  sacred  books 


his  translation  would  in  future  be  enumerated  among  them  ?  This  an- 
cient passage  is  refutation  enough  of  the  might  of  the  Zurich  Library, 
Th.  I.  S.  177:  "Which  is  proved  by  the  appellation  Moses,  the  Prophets, 
and  Writings,  since  under  this  title  (  i.  e.  urilings),  might  be  compre- 
hended all  pscudepigrapha  and  apocryphal  writings  of  recent  times." 
What  a  nothing  is  a  mere  possibility,  when  there  are  in  opposition  to  it 
very  probable  considerations! 

(jx)  'the  Former  Pre Icgiie :  b  irsLTint  f/.cu  'Ixtf-ouc  h)  ttXuov  tdvrov  J'cvi 
itc  T*  nh  TeS  fOfAcu  K'it  toay  Tr^opHra^v  xdi  tuv  etAAav  TroLt^iuy  fii^Kiuv 
dtayyoffiv.  [  My  grandfather  Jesus,  being  much  devoted  to  the  study  of 
the  Law,  and  the  Prophets,  and  the  other  books  of  our  fathers.  Tr.] 
(i;)  Philo  dc  Vita  CorAcmpl.  0pp.,  T.  ii,  p.  476.  ed  Mang.  p.  893.  ed. 
Frankf.  '£»  eKar»  <ri  oiKict  (according  to  the  Frankf.  ed.  i^as-do  ii 
Irrii  einnfjict)  ligoy,  o  K*\urai  aifxxiiii  jta?/  f/ovarinptov,  h  a'  fAovSufAtvet  Tci 
row   ffi^vou  /3/ou    fxv^rigiA   rtxouvrat,    fA«itv    ilfKofJ-i^o^Tt;,  fAti    trotof,  fci» 


*SflcANON  or  Tlifi  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  ij:.  45 

of  the  Egyptian  Jews  in  general j  but  only  of  those,  which  the 
fanatical  Therapeutae  held  sacred,  and  introduced  into  their 
religious  assemblies.  But  that  the  Therapeutae  did  not  differ 
from  the  other  Egyptian  Jews,  in  regard  to  their  sacred  books, 
is  evinced  by  the  strict  accordance  of  this  periphrasis  of  the 
Canon,  with  that  given  by  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach,  and  by  the 
Palestine  writers. 

3.  In  the  same  manner  that  Jesus  the  Son  of  Sirach  divides 
the  Egyptian  Canon  into  three  parts,  and  thence  entitles  it ; 
so  does  the  New  Testament  divide  the  Palestine  Canon  into 
the  "  Law,  Prophets  and  Psalms."     Luke,  xxiv.  44. 

4.  And  with  the  Therapeutae  in  Egypt,  Josephus  also  very 
minutely  accords,  in  his  description  of  the  Palestine  Canon. 
According  to  him,  it  contained  "  the  Books  of  Moses,  the 
Prophets,  Psalms  of  praise  to  God,  and  writings  on  moral 
subjects."  (z) 

Although  it  does  not  admit  of  being  absolutely  demonstrated 
from  these  considerations,  that  the  Canon  was  the  same  in  the 
two  countries  ;  yet  it  may  hence  be  very  probably  conjectured. 
To  attain  greater  certainty  on  the  subject,  we  will  endeavour 
to  describe  the  Canon  of  the  Egyptian  and  that  of  the  Pales* 
tine  Jews,  separately,  from  their  own  writers. 


axxflt  1 6  fit  0  V  s  KAi  xlyiA  Qiayria-Bhrci  S'ldi  it  ^o  ^  n  t  St  v  Kit  v  /ut  v  o  v  e 
Kit  T  i  £ \KA,  oic  hiTinH  KXt  ti/TiJiiia  vvvaiu^ovrxi  nit  Ttxttov*ra.t 
,  .  .  .  .  'Evruyj(^itofrts  yi^  rait  ti^oic  y^x/u/xta-t,  9iASffO(^oy«-/  riiv  ir«Tgiof 
flXoaopiAV,  ct'A.A«)/Ogou»Ttc.  eTTuS'p  vvfx&oKa  rai  Twr  ^»tmc  igjuijt/ac  ro/Ut- 
^Qvri  ^unaii  u.ziiiU.^u(A(JLm^,  h  virovoixtt  J'uKov/uiiviK.  'En  tTi  abrolc 
itxt  auyy^iufA.oiTA  na\*tce*  dv^^uf,  oT  TWf  «ijg«a-iac  dk^^)iyi'rai  ytvdfjctyet 
rrawi  fAiH(xUa  T»c  h  TO<c  <tKKnyo^QUfA.aoti  li'i*t  eiTriMntt.  [  Each  com- 
munity has  a  sacred  house,  called  a  sanctuary  or  monastery,  in 
which  recluses  devote  themselves  to  the  mysteries  of  the  holy  life. 
They  take  nothing  into  it,  neither  food,  nor  drink,  nor  such  other  tilings 
as  are  required  for  the  use  of  the  body ;  but  laws,  and  oracles  divinely 
communicated  by  the  prophets,  and  hymns,  and  the  other  (books), 

by  which  knowledge  and  piety  are  promoted  and  perfected They 

study  the  Sacred  Scriptdres. They  have  also 

compositions  of  ancient  worthies,  who,  being  founders  of  their  sect,  left 

many  records Tr.] 

(«)  JosEPHus  contra  Ap.,  lib.  i.  $  8.     [  See  the  passage  cited  below, 


46  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  12.  13. 


II.  Canon  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt. 

§.  12. 

Sources. 

We  collect,  first  of  all,  the  testimonies  of  the  Canon  of  the 
Egyptians  from  Egyptian  Jews.  Especial  care,  not  to  wan- 
der in  inextricable  labyrinths,  requires  that  we  here  altogether 
omit  the  opinions  of  the  Egyptian  Christians  on  the  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament.  These  are  too  recent  to  bear  formal 
testimony ;  without  settled  principles,  and  from  capricious 
views,  they  merely  pronounce  opinions  on  the  value  of  parti- 
cular books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  use  which  may  be 
made  of  them ;  and  such  opinions  can  be  of  no  decisive 
weight.  (§.  7.)  Hence  too,  as  we  learn  from  Origen,  Jerome, 
Ruffin,  and  Augustine,  they  admired  apocryphal  books,  which, 
among  the  Egyptian  Jews,  as  we  shall  see  below,  were  held 
in  no  repute  whatever. 

We  cannot  therefore  use  as  sources,  from  which  to  derive 
our  account  of  the  Egyptian  Canon,  even  the  fathers  that  have 
been  named;  but  merely  the  Alexandrian  Version  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  Philo. 


§.  13. 

I.  Alexandrian  Version. 

The  Alexandrian  Version  is  here  mentioned,  because  it 
has  been  used  in  modern  times,  as  a  source  ;  in  my  view,  it  is 
inadmissable.  (a) 


(«)  Chr.  FriDv  Schmidh  historia  antiqua  et  vindic.  Canonis  V.  e\ 
N.  r.  p.  12r, 


CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  ^.  13.  4!tI 

L  It  is  asserted,  that  the  Alexandrian  Version,  in  the  most 
ancient  times,  may  have  contained  only  as  many  books  as  we 
now  commonly  enumerate  in  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.— This,  however,  has  not  hitherto  been  proved,  but 
only  decided  by  authorities.  And  whence  was  it  to  be 
proved  ?  "  From  the  accounts  of  the  origin  of  the  Alex- 
andrian Version  ? " — because  Eleazar  may  have  sent  to  Egypt 
a  Hebrew  MS.  (for  the  forming  of  this  Version,)  of  which, 
however,  we  shall  be  left  to  conjecture,  that  it  was  transcrib- 
ed from  a  genuine  copy  in  Jerusalem,  which  contained  all 
our  present  canonical  books  ? — But  is  it  even  certain,  that 
Eleazar  was  under  the  necessity  of  sending  to  Egypt  a  Hebrew 
MS.,  for  the  use  of  the  Alexandrian  translators,  as  the  roman- 
cer Aristeas  pretends  ?  [h)  Yet  granting,  that  his  account  of 
a  copy  directed  from  Jerusalem  to  Egypt  might  be  correct — 
is  it  not  again  asserted,  what  should  first  be  proved,  that  the 
Palestine  Canon  may  have  then  contained  just  as  many  books 
as  we  now  enumerate  in  it  ?  What  reasoning  in  a  circle  ! — 
Nay,  if  we  meant  to  conclude  any  thing  from  the  account 
given  by  Aristeas  and  his  Epitomist  Josephus  :  it  would  fol- 
low, that  only  the  five  books  of  Moses  belonged  to  the  Ca- 
non of  the  Alexandrians.  For  according  to  Aristeas  and 
Josephus,  Eleazar  is  alleged  to  have  sent  to  Egypt  a  manu- 
script of  the  V  0  fA  0  g  only,  the  pentateuch  ;  even  Philo  allows, 
that  at  first,  only  the  five  books  of  Moses  were  translated. 

2.  The  Alexandrian  Version  was  gradually  formed,  at 
diflferent  times,  from  different  inducements,  and  by  differ- 
ent learned  men.  If  it  had  already  been  decided  by  other 
testimonies,  that  all  the  books,  which  our  editions  of  the  Bible 
contain,  might  have  possessed  canonical  authority  from  the 
most  ancient  times,  and  that  they  might  have  actually  been 
translated,  all,  at  one  time,  by  an  individual,  or  by  an  associa- 
tion of  learned  Jews  in  Egypt :  then  would  the  conclusion  be 


(6)  HoDY,  dt  bibliorum  text.  4>ng. ;  wad  J.  G.  Eichhoris's  Repert, 
Th.  I.  S.  266.  ss.— [  See  also  Prideaux,  Connex.  P.  ii.  B.  i.  An.  277 : 
and  WaiSToy,  AutheniicI:  Renords,  P.  ii.  p.  493  ,  Lond.,  1727.     Tr. "] 


48  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  VS, 

in  a  measure  probable,  that,  on  that  account,  they  may  have 
been  presented  to  the  Egyptian  Jews,  at  one  time,  in  a  Ver- 
sion ;  as  hke  value  and  like  authority  may  have  been  attribut- 
ed to  them.  But  this  has  not  been  the  case  ;  and  the  book  of 
Isaiah,  for  example,  w^hich  however  must  necessarily  have  been 
a  part  of  our  Canon  from  the  very  first,  was  extant  in  Greek 
at  a  much  more  recent  date  than  the  books  of  Moses. 

3.  And  if  even  all  might  have  been  translated  at  once,  yet 
then,  an  inference  of  their  complete  canonical  authority,  found- 
ed on  this,  would  rest  upon  an  unstable  foundation  and  basis. 
For  the  original  occasion  of  this  work  is  unknown.  If  the 
desire  of  the  Jews,  to  be  able,  in  tlieir  own  synagogues,  to 
read  the  books  of  their  religion  in  the  Greek  language,  might 
have  led  to  this  Version ;  then  only  could  it  have  been  pre- 
sumed, not  without  some  foundation,  that  merely  the  canonical 
would  have  been  selected,  and  that  the  uncanonical,  at  least 
those  at  hand,  would  have  been  deemed  worthy  of  no  transla- 
tion. But  all  antiquity  pronounces  it  an  undertaking,  merely 
literary.  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  wished  to  have  reposited  in 
his  library,  the — books  of  the  Mosaick  Law,  or  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  in  general  ? — translated  indeed  into  Greek,  be- 
cause the  original  was  not  understood  by  the  Greeks  in  Egypt ; 
and  with  such  a  purpose,  many  apocryphal  writings  must  have 
been  just  as  important  to  him  as  any  inspired  book,  which,  in 
the  library  of  a  heathen,  had  no  preference  to  one  merely 
human. 

4.  In  fine,  some  of  our  apocryphal  writings,  in  a  transla- 
tion, vfere  actually  put  into  the  hands  of  the  Egyptian  Jews, 
at  a  very  early  date :  for  example,  the  sentences  of  Jesus 
Sirach,  the  Epistle  of  Mordecai,  concerning  the  Feast  .of 
Purim,  &c.  (c) 


(c)  See  the  Former  Prologue  to  Jesus  Sirach;  and  then  the  Greek 
Version  of  the  book  of  Esther,  at  the  end.  [  On  the  subjects  in  this 
section,  Eichhorn  is  very  able,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  0.  T.,  Vol.  i. 
^.  161 — 183.,  and  in  his  Repertory,  (as  quoted  in  the  preceding  note,) 
Vol.  I,,  the  concluding  article,  (in  German),  On  the  Sources,  from  which 
the  different  accounts  of  the  rise  of  the  Alexandrian  Version  have  been  de- 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  13.  14.       49 

Let  it  not  be  objected,  that  if  this  version  had  not  com- 
prised strictly  all  canonical  Scriptures,  with  a  rejection  of 
all  apocryphal,  it  could  have  acquired  no  such  general 
authority.  For  it  is  known,  that  the  Alexandrian  Version 
was  half  deified,  on  account  of  a  prevailing  story,  that  the 
fipirit  of  inspiration  rested  upon  the  translators  ! 


i  14. 

II.  Pm  LO.     Flourished  ^.  i>.  4 1 . 

Philo  of  Alexandria  *  is  the  only  source  remaining,  from 
which  we  can  draw,  for  our  investigation  of  the  contents  of 
the  Alexandrian  Canon.  He  lived  just  at  the  time,  from 
which  our  investigation  commences ;  at  the  time  of  Christ 
and  the  Apostles,  (§.  8.)  Now  he  gives  us  indeed,  no  where 
in  his  writings,  a  full  account  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  but  here  and  there,  in  passing,  he  throws  out,  as  if  by 
the  way,  separate  declarations,  which  evince  to  us  his  opinion, 
and  probably  even  the  opinion  of  his  brethren,  on  the  value 
and  the  authority  of  particular  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 


rived.  See  also  Jahn's  Introduction  to  the  O.  T.,  P.  i.  $.  34 — 37; 
Horne's  Introd.,  Vol.  ii.  P.  i.  Ch.  v.  S.  i;  and  Bertholdt's  Introduc- 
tion, Vol.  II.  $.  155 — 159.  For  an  ample  account  of  the  best  works,  on 
the  principal  topicks  suggested  by  the  Alexandrian  Version,  particularly 
on  the  Letter  of  Aristeas,  its  editions,  translations,  authenticity,  and  the 
publications  which  illustrate  it ;  and  on  the  Criticism  and  Exegesis  of 
the  Septuagint  in  general,  see  E.  F.  C.  Rosenmuller's  Manual  for  the 
Literature  of  Biblical  Criticism  and  Exegesis,  (in  German)^  Vol.  ir.,  on 
the  Alexandrian  Version,  Part  in.  Ch.  i — v.  pp.  344—458.,  GUtlingen^ 
1798.       Tr.  ] 

*  [  De  Wette,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Archaiology,  (in  German), 
§.  8.,  supplies  a  series  of  the  best  references,  on  the  credibility  and  the 
Hebrew  learning  of  Philo.  See  also  Eichhorn's  Introd.  to  the  O.  T., 
Vol.  II.  $.  339.  a;  and  Horne's  Introd.,  Vol.  n.  P.  i.  Ch.  vii,  S,  m. 
— 7V.1 


50  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,   §.  14.  15. 

Yet  they  are  nothing  but  scattered  fragments  ;  and  no  whole 
can  be  recovered  from  them:  yet  these  fragments  must 
be  extremely  useful  to  us,  in  the  want  of  other  more  com- 
plete accounts. 


§.  15. 

1.  Philo  on  the  Apocrypha. 

Philo  was  acquainted  with  the  apocryphal  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  for  he  borrows  phrases  from  them.  But 
he  does  not  even  once  cite  a  single  one,  much  less  allegorize 
them,  or  establish  by  them  his  views,  (d)  Thus,  the  fact  that 
he  takes  no  notice  of  them,  did  not  proceed  from  unacquaint- 
ance  with  them,  which  might  scarce  have  been  supposed  in 
regard  to  a  man  of  such  extensive  reading ;  but  probably  be- 
cause he  esteemed  them  lightly,  and — is  it  too  hasty  a  con- 
clusion, if  I  add  ? — because  he  did  not  place  them  among  the 
Scriptures,  which  his  age  regarded  as  holy  and  divine.  For 
his  neglect  of  them  goes  very  far.  He  does  not  once  pay 
them  that  deference  which  he  shows  to  a  Plato,  Philolaus, 
Solon,  Hippocrates,  Heraclitus,  and  others,  from  whose  writ- 
ings he  often  inserts  whole  passages.  («) 


(d)  Thus  positive  are  the  words  of  Hornemann,  (observationes  ad 
illustrationem  doctrinae  de  canone  V.  T.  ex  Philone,  p.  28.  29.) ;  and  as 
he  asserts,  that  he  read  Philo's  writings  throughout,  with  a  view  to  as- 
certain his  opinion  of  the  Canon,  he  has  a  right  to  expect,  that  no  doubt 
may  be  raised  upon  his  positive  declaration.  I  shall  therefore  chiefly 
follow  him  in  this  section,  with  the  exception  of  some  of  his  views,  in 
regard  to  which  I  am  of  a  different  opinion  : — as  to  the  others,  his  obser- 
vations shall  be  enlarged  by  additions. 

(e)  The  Zurich  Library,  (Th.  i.  S.  178.)  objects  :  "  Philo  does  not 
"  cite  the  Apocrypha.  But  as  little  as  his  silence  on  some  canonical 
"  Scriptures  proves,  that  they  were  not  in  the  Canon  of  the  Egyptian 
"  Jews  ;  so  little  does  his  silence  on  the  Apocrypha  prove  this  of  them." 
Entirely  correct:  an  argument  derived  from  silence  no  one  will  call 
strong;  but  it  does  not  deserve,  however,  to  be  passed  over.     Still  it  is 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  15.         51 

Whoever  examines  the  Indexes  to  the  editions  of  Philo, 
particularly  the  edition  of  Mange y,  will  find  in  them,  it  is 
true,  so  many  passages  quoted  from  the  Apocryphal  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament,  that  Philo  might  seem  to  have  made 
great  use  of  them.  Yet  the  passages  cited  in  the  Indexes, 
here  as  well  as  elsewhere,  are  very  deceptive.     Some  refer 


certainly  a  remarkable  fact,  that  Philo  quotes  no  one  of  our  apocryphal 
hooks,  although  they  were  so  near  to  him,  and  the  contents,  at  least  of 
of  one,  was  so  well  suited  to  his  purpose.  Had  there  been  none  adapt- 
ed to  his  spirit  of  allegorizing :  what  could  be  founded  upom  their  not 
being  used  ?  But  now,  his  silence  concerning  thera  must  at  least  attract 
attention  to  such. 

"  The  circumstance  proves,  that  Philo  never  quotes  these  books,  but 
"  not  that  he  rejects  them.  Some,  perhaps,  that  were  most  congenial 
"  with  his  meditations,  had  not  yet  been  published ;  as  the  Wisdom  of 
"  Solomon,  (which  some  are  so  ready  to  ascribe  to  him.)"  And  yet  the 
Author  asserts  in  the  very  next  page,  that  even  Josephus  may  have  met 
with  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  third  book  of  Esdras,  Tobit,  Baruch, 
Additions  to  Daniel  and  Esther,  appended  to  the  Greek  Bible.  And  the 
Grecian  Jew,  Philo,  was  not  acquainted  with  the  books :  the  so  well- 
read  Philo  was  so  unread  in  the  writings  of  his  own  nation ! ! ! 

"  Others,"  the  Author  proceeds,  "  he  never  had  occasion  to  quote  ;" 
— which  certainly  is  very  probable,  of  many  apocryphal,  as  it  is  of  some 
canonical  books.  "  Furthermore,  he  might  reject  the  Apocrypha,  with- 
"  out  therefore  deciding  on  the  opinion  of  the  Grecian  Synagogue  con- 
"  cerning  them.  Even  the  historical  contents  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
"  tures  he  did  not  highly  esteem,  and  his  way  of  thinking,  as  he 
"  had  formed  it  by  the  Platonick  Philosophy,  was  perhaps  as  diflFer- 
"  ent  from  the  way  of  thinking  among  other  Jews,  as  that  of  Maimo- 
•'  nides,  Orobius,  and  Moses  Mendelssohn,  from  the  views  and  opinions 
**  of  their  Jewish  cotemporaries."  But  did  he  dare  in  this  case  to  pro- 
raulge  it  in  writings  ?  Did  he  dare  to  depart  from  the  faith  of  his  whole 
nation,  without  incurring  the  severe  consequences  of  a  grievous  heresy  ? 
Have  the  Jews  of  superior  intelligence  who  are  named,  and  any  not 
named,  publickly  promulged  in  writings  their  departure  from  their  na- 
tion's faith  ;  or  have  they  done  so  without  great  opposition  ?  Besides, 
it  is  indeed  assumed  only  as  probable,  that  his  opinion  of  the  Canon  may 
have  been  the  national  opinion;  his  scattered  expressions,  indeed,  are 
collected,  only  with  a  view  to  ascertain  what  the  most  learned  and 
famous  man  among  the  Alexandrain  Jews  thought  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  as  there  are  no  traces  of  his  having  departed,  in  writings, 
from  the  faith  and  opinions  of  his  Ration,  it  is  accordingly  presum- 
ed, that  in  hira  maybe  found  even  the  opinions  of  his  EevPTiAy  cos- 
TEMPORARIES  T>n  the  Carron 


b*Z  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §i  1*^>.  16,  17. 

merely  to  notes  of  the  editor,  in  which  sometimes  a  word, 
sometimes  a  various  reading  is  illustrated  by  a  passage  of  an 
apocryphal  book  ;  (/ )  but  sometimes  such  passages  are  re- 
ferred to,  because  Philo  has  asserted  something,  either  swii- 
lar  (g)  or  directly  the  reverse,  (h) 


§.  16. 

2.  Philo  on  the  Canonical  zuritings  of  the  Old  Testament. 

HoRNEMANN  arranges  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  ac- 
cording to  the  expressions  used  by  Philo,  in  three  classes  : 

1.  Books,  which  arc  cited  wilh  the  express  addition,  that  they  wire  of  divine 
origin. 

2.  BookSf  which  are  but  casually  cited. 

3.  Books,  which  he  never  mentions. 

We  shall  indeed  here  also  collect  Philo's  opinions  on  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Old  Testament,  severally,  in  the  order  stated  ;  but 
distinguish  with  precision  those  books  that  Philo  does  not 
speak  of  decidedly,  which  Hornemann  has  not  always  done. 


First  Class.     Writings,  to  which  Philo  attributes  a 
divine  origin. 

All  the  books,  which  are  of  divine  origin  according  to 
thilo,  are  in  his  phraseology  works  of  Prophets.  Yet  he 
does  not  always  apply  to  the  authors  of  such  the  appellation 


(/)  Hornemann,  de  eanone  Philonis,  has  culled,  from  the  Indexes, 
(p.  31.  note  n.)  the  passages  of  this  class,  which,  however,  to  save  room, 
I  shall  not  transcribe. 

(g)  See  the  Collection  of  these  passages  at  the  place  cited,  p.  20. 
note  m. 

(h)  The  sStne,  p.  31.  note  mm. 


CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  17.  5ii 

■TT^ocpiirvii  [Prophet],  but  varies  it  for  *^o(p>}T>)s  dvi^^,  is^ocpavrrjg, 
^S(fiei(fios  oAJ'n^t  Mwutfg'wg  ^lafl'wTyjff,  rig  <rwv  (poiriiTWV  Mwrfscof, 
Muv(feug  kaT^og,  tou  flf^otpriTixoiJ  ^jacTwriis  x°^°^j  [  prophetick  man, 
hierophant,  holy  man,  associate  of  Moses,  one  of  the  attend- 
ants of  Moses,  companion  of  Moses,  member  of  the  prophetick 
choir],  all  of  which,  with  him,  are  perfect  synonymes  of 
'r^^o(pyirrig  [  Prophet  ]. 

The  books  themselves  he  calls,  sometimes  U^ai  y^acpai  [  Sa- 
cred Scriptures  ],  sometimes  *£^a»  /3i^Xo<  [Sacred  Books], 
sometimes  is^o^  Xoyo?  [  Sacred  Word  ],  sometimes  le^wraTov 
y^a/x.aa  [  Most  Sacred  Writing  ],  sometimes  ra  k^o(pavrri^ivra. 
[  the  hierophant  words  ],  sometimes  <r^o(pr)Tixos  "Koyog  [  Prophe- 
tick Word  ]  or  ir^ospyiTixa  ^rjiiara  [  Prophetick  Sayings  ],  some- 
times Xoyjov  [  Oracle  ]  alone,  or  Xoyjov  rod  06ou  [  Oracle  of  God  ], 
sometimes  x^^<^f*°5  [  Response],  or  to  x^tic^sv  [  the  Response  ]. 
With  him  all  these  are  synonymes,  as  appears  partly  from 
the  expressions  themselves,  and  partly  from  a  comparison  of 
the  passages  where  they  occur. 

To  apprehend  these  expressions  in  the  spirit  of  Philo,  and 
to  be  able  thoroughly  to  investigate  the  opinions  which  they 
convey,  in  regard  to  the  sacred  books  of  his  nation,  we  must 
here  premise  his  exalted  views  of  a  prophet  With  him, 
Prophets  are  interpreters  of  God  {l^iiyimg  tov  0eou),  instruments 
of  God,  which  he  employs  to  make  known  that  which  he 
wishes  to  have  made  known.  They  deliver  nothing  that  is 
their  own,  but  mere  extraneous  things,  communicated  to  them 
by  God,  through  inward  operations.  As  long  as  a  prophet  is 
rapt,  of  himself  he  knows  nothing  ;  if  the  divine  spirit  has  only 
first  taken  possession  of  him  ;  it  then  acts  upon  his  soul,  as 
well  as  upon  his  organs  of  speech — upon  the  former  to  reveal 
to  it  things  unknown  ;  upon  the  latter,  so  that  they  give  utter- 
ance to  those  words  which  it  imparts,  (i) 


(i)  Philo  de  monarchia,  lib.  i.  0pp.  Tom.  i.  p.  222.  M.  p.  820.  Fr. 
After  having  spoken  of  Moses,  he  proceeds:  l^fjutvuc  >*'g  «io-/»  ol  sr^o- 

De  legibus  special.,  0pp.  T.  ii.  p.  343.  7rge<j»)T»;   ^i  /uh  -yd^ 


54       CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  17.  18. 

In  fine,  according  to  his  opinion,  Moses  was  the  greatest 
prophet.  If  then  Philo  intends  to  speak  of  the  inspiration  of 
any  writer  in  very  strong  terms,  he  makes  the  prophetick 
spirit  of  Moses  the  standard,  by  which  he  estimates  the 
prophetick  spirit  of  that  writer.  Hence  the  expressions : 
MwOrf5W5  ^raT^os,  Mwurfs'wj  ^la^wrrj?,  rig  rwv  (poiT>jTwv  Mwtfgw^, 
[  companion  of  Moses,  associate  of  Moses,  one  of  the  attend- 
ants of  Moses.  ] 


§.  18. 

Tlie  FIVE  BOOKS  OP  MosES,  Joshua,  first  book  of  Samuel, 

Ezra. 

Of  MosES  and  his  five  books,  Philo  expresses  himself  in 
very  strong  terms.  He  calls  Moses,  sometimes  'n'^o(pV'»is 
[  Prophet  ],  sometimes  Is^ocpavr^jg  [  Hierophant  ]  (A:),  and  the 
like ;  his  inspiration  is  the  standard  by  which  he  estimates 
the  inspiration  of  other  writers.  (§.  17.)  His  writings  he 
calls  *f o(pr)Tixoff   Xoyd^    [  Prophetick  Word  ],    or  'S^ai  /3/,/3Xoi 


oi/eTiv  'iS'toV  airoepaiiiTiti  {airoif ^tyyir a l)  tc  TntgctTfaV,  aK\^  tV/v  sg/u»v«yf 
yryomt    h    dyioU,    jutrttvtTAfAinu    fjist    tov    xoyia-fxav  kai    ttoi gxKiXO'gx- 

XOTOC       T»y      T»f    4''/t*'f    AK^SltiKlV     tTT tTT i^ 0 IT HKdrOg    /«    KXl    eVO/X«K!TeC   TOV 

3"i/oy  TTViv/uAros,  kxi  nsirav  T»y  <pccv^;  ogyaVoTroiity  K^ovovrcg  tT*  K^t 
tv»')(^oZyro(  tl(  iva^yti  SHXeenv  dv  ir^oS-gcTT/^i/.  Quis  rerum  dwin.  haeres 
sit,  0pp.  T.  1.  p.  510.  M.  p.  517.  Fr. :  ^rgo^wTwc  >«*§  iS'tcv  /^h  ovSh 
dTto<^b'iyytt(ti,  aChhoT^tx  cTe  irxvr*,  VTriix^ovvrot  ersgoy.  De  praemiis 
et  poenis,  0pp.  T.  ii.  p.  417.  M.   p.    918.  Fr.      f^iu>ivtvs  yai^  Wiv    h 

(k)  PfliLo  Alleg.,  1.  II.  0pp.  T.  n.  p.  66.  M.  p.  1087.  Fr.  o  Tt^o<p»'ni:. 
Alhg.,  1.  ni.  0pp.  T.  I.  p.  117.  M.  p.  89.  Fr.  6  »«go<;>*yT»f .  ihid,  0pp.  T.  i. 
p.  121.  M.  p.  92.  Fr.  b  li^o<pdyTng  kai  jrgo(^>iT»?.  7^e  gigant.,  0pp.  T.  i. 
p.  270.  M.  p.  291.  Fr.  o  li^o<pdvT>i(  o^ytaev  KdLi  MdcKeLXog  B-tim, 
Uc.  HoRNEMANN,  pp.  34.  35.,  has  collected  several  passages,  in  which 
the  quoted  expressions  are  varied  for  others  of  the  same  meaning,  and 
^^hich,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  I  omit 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  18.  56' 

[  Sacred  Books  ],  &c.  (/)  He  also  allegorizes  particular 
passages  of  all  the  five  books,  and  all  citations  from  them  are 
made  in  the  same  exalted  terms.  Genesis  he  calls  le^ai  y^DLcpat 
(Sacred  Writings]  (m);  the  second  book  of  Moses  Jff^d 
^i(3\os  [  Sacred  Book  ]  (n) ;  the  third  Is^og  Xoyog  [  Sacred 
Word  ]  (o)  ;  and  the  fourth  le^wTarev  y^afAj^a  [  Most  Sa- 
cred Writing  ]  (p) ;  and  lastly,  the  fifth  book,  xf^<^f*°^ 
[  Oracle  ]  (q) ;  and  is^os  Xoyog  [  Sacred  Word  ].  (r) 

The  book  of  Joshua  is  denominated  Xo'yiov  tou  i'Xsw  esou 
[  Oracle  of  the  Gracious  God  ],  on  the  occasion  when  Ch.  i. 
5.  ia,  cited,  {s) 

From  the  first  book  of  Samuel,  which  Philo,  after  the 
manner  of  all  writers  who  use  the  Septuagint,  calls  the  first 
book  of  Kings,  Ch.  ii.  2.  is  cited  with  the  formula:  ws  o  is^og 
Xoyo5  (pr\(fh  [  as  the  Sacred  Word  saith  ].  (j) 

From  the  book  of  Ezra  Ch.  viii.  2.  is  quoted,  and  the  con- 
tents of  the  cited  passage  are  called :  '^a.  sv  ^aifiKixaTs  /?»/?- 
Xoij  »£^o(pavTti^c'vra  [the  hierophant  words  in  the  royal 
books],  (tt) 


(Z)  Allegor.,  lib.  in.  p.  92.  M.  p.  68.  Fr.  de  Plant,  Noe,  0pp.  T.  u 
p.  347.  M.  p.  230.  Fr.  de  congressu  quaer.  erudit.  gratia,  0pp.  T.  i.  p. 
543.  M.  p.  448.  Fr.  6  7r^o<pn'riKoc  x6yo(.  de  vita  Mods,  lib.  in.  Opp, 
T.  II.  p.  163.  M.  p.  681.  Fr.  Jig**  fiijiKot.  On  this  also,  Hornemann 
has  several  passages,  p.  36.,  in  which  these  expressions  are  varied  for 
others  of  like  signification. 

(m)  De  mundi  Opif.,  0pp.  T.  i.  p.  18.  M.  p.  16.  Fr.  For  similar  ex- 
pressions, see  de  Mrah.,  p.  1.  T.  n.  M.  p.  349.  Fr.  Resipuit  Noe,  T-  h 
p.  400.  M.  p.  28l.Fr.,  &c. 

(n)  De  migrat.  Abrah.,  0pp.  T.  i,  p.  438.  M.  p.  390.  Fr.,  &c. 

(o)  Lib.  III.  Alleg.y  T.  i.  0pp.  p.  85.  M.  p.  1007.  Fr.  Desomniis, 
Opp.  T.  I.  p.  63S.  M.  p.  377.  Fr. 

(p)  De  eo  quod  Deus  sit  immutab.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  273.  M.  p.  249.  Fr, 
De  migrat.  Abrah.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  457.  M.  p.  409.  Fr. 

(q)  De  migrat.  Abr.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  454.  M.  p.  405.  Fr. 

(r)  De  somniis,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  657.  M.  p.  601.  Fr. 

is)  De  confus.  ling.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  430.  M.  p.  344.  Fr. 

(0  De  temulent.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  379.  M.  p.  261.  Fr. 

(a)  De  confus.  Unguarum,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  427.  M,  p.  341.  Fr. 


56         CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  19. 


§.  19. 

Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Hosea,  Zechariah,  Psalms, 
Proverbs. 

The  prophet  Isaiah  Philo  calls  o  raXaj  •3r'^o(p>jT»i5  [the 
ancient  Prophet],  {v)  and  his  prophecies  cr^wpiiTJxa  ^%aTa 
[  Prophetick  Sayings],  (w) 

Jeremiah  he  denominates  ^^otp^jTrjj,  iivgrisy  Ie^o(pavTrjj,  [Pro- 
phet, Initiated,  Hierophant  ],  and  the  passage  Ch.  in.  4.  which 
he  adduces,  he  calls  x^'^^M'O^  [  Oracle  ].  {x)  In  another 
place,  Jeremiah  is  described  as  "  a  member  of  the  prophetick 
choir,  who  spake  in  ecstasy:"  'rou  ir^oqivirmu  Sja^wng^  X°^°^> 
og  xarairvsuo'&s/s  ^vSouCjwv  avscr^'hiy^aro.  (y)  And  elsewhere  he 
says,  that  God,  "  the  Father  of  all  things,  hath  spoken  by  the 
prophetick  mouth  of  Jeremiah :"  6  irarr,^  twv  oXwv  ^^eWjo's 
(^/d   <3r'^o(p>)TJXou   ^ojxarog   Is^SfAiou).  (2) 

Of  the  Minor  Prophets,  two  only  are  cited  in  the  works 
of  Philo  :  Hose  A  and  Zechariah. 

HosEA  XIV.  8.  Philo  calls  xf^<^^=^  "^^i^-  '^'vi  twv  <3r^o9*j<rwv 
[an  Oracle  of  a  certain  Prophet],  (a)  and  Hos.  xiv.  24.  ^o^arj 
'jr'^o^rjTix^  &gtf«3ritfSsvTa  ^ja^u^ov  -x^^rid^ov  [the  glowing  oracle,  ut- 
tered by  the  prophetick  mouth].  (6)  Zechariah  he  deno- 
minates, on  citing  Ch.  VI.  13.,  MwuCtw^  kaT^og^  [companion 
of  Moses],  (c) 

The  Psalms  are  largely  quoted  by  Philo ;  but,  for  the  most 
part,  without  the  addition  of  their  high  origin.  David  is  ho- 
noured with  the  same  epithets  as  Moses ;  he  is  called,  some- 


(»)  De  Somniis,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  681.  M.  p.  1132.  Fr. 
(w)  De  mutat.  nom.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  604.  M.  p.  1071.  Fr. 
(x)  De  Cherubim,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  147.  148.  M.  p.  116.  Fr. 
(3/)  Dc  confus.  lingu.j  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  411.  M.  p.  326.  Fr 
(s)  De  profugis,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  575.  M.  p.  479.  Fr. 
(a)  Deplantat.  Noe,  Opp.  T.  i-  p.  350.  M.  p.  233.  Fr 
(6)  De  mutat.  nom.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p  599.  M.  p.  1066.  Fr 
(cj  De  confus,  lingu.,  Opp.  T.  i,  p.  414.  M.  p.  329.  Fr. 


CANON  OV   THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  19.  20.        57 

times  'n:^o(p'i}rrig  [  Prophet  ],  (d)  sometimes  -jf^oqj^jTirij  dv7?V  [  pro- 
phetick  man  ],  (e)  sometimes  ^scfie'Kftog  dv?!^  [  holy  man  ],  (/) 
sometimes  "  associate  of  Moses,  who  was  not  an  inferior :'' 
Mcdufl'swg  ^laifCirifis  og  oup^i  rwv  ^fjusXyifisvcov  ^v  ;  (g-)  sometimes  iraroos 
•MwUtfiwg.  (h) 

Of  Solomon,  as  author  of  the  Proverbs,  he  expresses  him- 
self just  as  highly.  He  calls  him  a  member  ^x  rou  &s»ou  x^^S^^ 
£  of  the  divine  choir  ],  (i)  and  in  another  place  tIs  twv  9ojt>]twv 
Mwtfiwff  [  one  of  the  attendants  of  Moses  ].  (A) 


§.  20. 

Second  Class.     Writings  of  which  Philo  makes  only  casual 
mention,  without  the  addition  of  a  divine  origin. 

From  the  book  op  Judges — ( *j  twv  p^yj^arwv  dvay^acpofxsV/j 
^i^Xog  [  the  Record-book  of  the  Judges  ],  Philo  calls  it — ) 
Ch.  VIII.  9.  is  quoted,  according  to  the  Septuagint.  (/) 

Job  XIV.  4.  he  merely  interweaves  with  his  own  text,  with- 
out further  addition,  (m) 

The  FIRST  BOOK  OF  Kings,  ( the  third,  according  to  Philo 
and  the  Septuagint )  is  repeatedly  quoted,  {n) 


{d)  De  agricult.,  0pp.  T.  i.  p.  308,  M.  p.  195.  Fr. 

(e)  Qmm  rerum  divin.  hcEres  dt,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  515.  M.  p.  522.  Fr. 

(/)  De  plant.  Noe,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  344.  M.  p.  218.  Fr.  compare  de  mun- 
do,  Opp.  T.  u.  p.  608.  M.  p.  1157.  Fr. 

(g)  De  plantat.  Noe,  ed.  Fr.  p.  219. 

(h)  ^uod  a  Deo  mittantur  somnia,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  691.  M.  p.  1141.  Fr. 

(i)  De  cbrUtate,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  362.  M.  p.  244.  Fr. 

(k)  De  congressu  quaer,  erud.  gratia,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  544.  M.  449.  Fr. 

(l)  De  confus.  lingu.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  424.  M.  p.  339.  Fr.  [  The  peri- 
phrasis here  mentioned  occurs  a  few  lines  before  the  quotation,  near 
the  bottom  of  p.  338.  in  the  Frankfort  edition.      Tr.  ] 

(m)  De  mulat.  nam.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  584.  M.  p  1051.  Fr. 

(»)  De  Gi^ant.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  274.  M.  p.  295.  Fr.  Compare  1  Sam. 
II.  5.  De  ebriet.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  380.  M,  p.  261.  262.  F.  comp.  1  Sam. 
1. 14.  15.  De  migrat.  Abr.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  467.  M.  p.  418.  Fr. ;  comp. 
1  Sam.  X.  23.     De  mulat.  nam.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  600.  M.  1067.  Fr. ;  comp, 

S 


58  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  '20.  21.  2*2. 

Even  many  particular  Psalms  are  merely  cited,  without 
mention  being  made  of  a  high  origin,  (o) 


§.  21. 

Third  Class.     Writings^  of  which  Philo  makes  no  men- 
tion 7ohatsoever, 

Philo  never  speaks  of:; — 1.  Nehemiah  ;  2.  Ruth;  3.  Es- 
ther ;  4.  Chronicles  ;  5.  Daniel  ;  6.  Lamentatio?js  ;  7, 
Ecclesiastes  ;  8.  The  Song  op  Solomon. 


§.  22. 
Some  notes  and  results  of  the  preceding  investigation. 

I.  Among  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  the  divine  origin  of  which 
Philo  expressly  recognises,  we  may  however,  very  probably 
even  in  Philo's  sense,  enumerate  the  following: — 

1.  The  second  book  op  Samuel,  and  the  two  books  op 
Kings  ;  for  he  calls  the  first  book  of  Samuel  Is^ov  Xo/ov  [  the 


X  Sam.  11.  5.  QwotZ  Beus  sit  imm,,  0pp.  T.  i.  p.  293.  M.  p.  313.  Fr. 
comp.  1  Kings  xvii;  10.18;  ix.  9.  De  migrat.  Abr.,  0pp.  T.  i.  p.  441. 
M.  p.  394.  Fr.  Q_uis  rerum  divin.  haeres  sit,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  483.  M.  p. 
491.  Fr.  comp.  1  Kings,  iX.  9. 

(9)  Quod  Deus  sit  immut.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  284,  M.  p.  304.  Fr.  comp. 
Ps.  01.  1 ;  T.sxv.  8 ;— and  there,  the  following  pages,  comp.  Ps.  lxiii.  11. 
De  migrat.  Mrah.,0])T[).  T,  i.  p.  460.  M.  p.  412.  F.  comp.  Ps.  lxxx.  5  ; 
xLii.  3.;  De  mutat.  mm.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  59G.  M.  p.  1062.  F. ;  comp.  Ps. 
xxn.  1.  Quod  a  Deo  mitt,  somnia,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  632.  M.  p.  576.  F.  comp. 
Ps.  xxvi.T.  De  confus.  ling.,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  411.  M.  p.  327.  F.  comp. 
Ps.  xLiV.  13.  De  profugis,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  595.  M.  p.  459.  F.  comp.  Ps. 
cxm.25.  De  som7dis,  Opp.  T.  i.  p.  691.  M.  1141.  F.  comp.  Ps.  xlvi. 
5.  From  these  passages  it  is  clear,  that  all  books  of  Psalms,  which  were 
collected  at  different  times,  arc  cited  by  Philo. 


CANON  Oi'  TUtl  OLD  TE5TA:^ENT^  §.  2'2.  59 

feJacred  Word  ],  (§.  18.)  Now  he  considers,  with  all  writers 
who  follow  the  8eptuagiiit,  the  two  books  of  Samuel,  and  the 
two  books  of  Kings,  as  a  zvhole  or  as  one  book,  wliich  they 
divide  into  four  parts  or  four  books.  Thus,  whoever  de- 
clares the  first  of  these  four  boolts  to  be  Is^os  K6yos  [  the  Sa- 
cred Word  ],  declares  also  the  other  three  to  be  so. 

2.  All  twelve  Minor  Prophets.  As  far  back  as  we 
can  trace  the  literary  history  of  the  Bible,  the  twelve  mi- 
nor prophets  have  ever  been  regarded  as  one  book  ;  Ecclus. 
XLix.  10.  Whoever,  therefore,  quotes  only  one  of  the  Minor 
Prophets — (and  Philo  cites  two  of  them,  with  the  express  re- 
cognition of  a  divine  origin,)  §.  19.)  ) — virtually  cites  all. 

IL  As  Philo  was  certainly  acquainted  with  the  apocry- 
phal books,  but  has  never  quoted  any  one  of  them ;  (§.  15.) 
it  can  be  safely  assumed,  that  all  writings  of  his  nation, 
which  he  thinks  proper  only  to  quote,  he  considers  authentick, 
ancient,  and  sacred  Scriptures.  Thus,  even  a  mere  citation 
of  a  book  is  evidence  to  us,  that  Philo  had  it  in  his  Canon  ; 
and  the  books  which,  with  a  view  to  be  impartial,  we  have 
hitherto  classed  according  to  the  manner  of  their  being  cited, 
we  may  without  doubt  throw  into  one  class. 

III.  As  a  consequence  of  this,  the  following  books  it  is 
certain  belonged  to .  the  Canon  of  Philo,  or  of  the  Egyptian 
Jews :— 


1.  The  FIVE  BOOKS  of 

Moses. 

7.  Isaiah. 

2.  Joshua. 

8.  Jeeemiah. 

3.  Judges. 

9.  12  MinortProphets. 

4.  2  BOOKS  OF  Samuel. 

10.  Psalms. 

5.  2  BOOKS  OF  Kings. 

11.  Proverbs. 

6.    EZKA. 

12.  Job. 

IV.  Even  the  others  may  have  stood  in  the  Egyptian  Ca- 
non. Probably  Ruth  was  an  appendix  to  the  book  of 
Judges ;  Nehemiah  the  second  part  of  Ezra ;  and  the  La- 
mentations OF  Jeremiah,  it  is  probable,  were  appended  to 
to  his  prophecies,  as  in  Palestine  (§.  10.  11.  and  42),  &c. 


GO      CANON  or  THE  OLD  TEST AMEKT,  §.  22.  ^3-  24. 

Philo  is  only  silent  on  this  point,  as  he  is  on  the  existence  of 
the  books.  Our  knowledge  of  the  Egyptian  Canon  is  thus 
not  complete.  But  neither  this  want  of  completeness,  nor 
the  silence  of  Philo,  can  w^eaken  the  canonical  authority  of 
any  book,  as  long  as  it  is  warranted  by  no  other  considera- 
tions. (^.  14.> 


§.  23. 

Canon  of  the  Therapcutae. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  scarcely  worth  while  to  examine,  what 
books  particular  Jewish  sects  in  Egypt  may  have  comprised 
in  their  Canon;  it  belongs  rather  to  the  history  of  their 
opinions,  than  to  the  history  of  the  Canon.  In  our  investiga- 
tion, moreover,  merely  the  opinion  of  the  greater  part  of  the 
Jews,  but  not  of  the  several  sects  among  them,  can  be  of 
weight.  It  is,  how  ever,  very  probable,  that  on  the  subject  of 
the  Canon,  at  least  the  fanatical  Therapeutae  did  not  differ 
from  the  rest  of  the  Egyptian  Jews.  (§.  11.)  (p) 


III.  Canon  of  the  Jews  in  PALESTiNE. 

§.24. 

Sources.     Canon  of  the  Sadducees  and  Samaritans. 

At  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  among  the  differ- 
ent sects  and  parties  into  which  the  Jews  in  Palestine  were 
divided,  there  appears  to  have  been  no  dispute  as  to  the  num- 
ber of  their  sacred  books.     The  Fathers  indeed  suggest,  that 


(/>)  Sec  the  passage  cited  from  Philo,  in  $.  11. — But  Josephus  d& 
hello  Jud.^  1.  11.  c.  8.  $.  6.  at  the  end,  and  §.  12.  cannot  be  used  in  proof- 
It  says  nothine;  further,  than  that  the  Efskves  had  sacred  books. 


^  OF  TBI 

HANOtt  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §*  24.  ^i^jgi'POIl 

the  Sadducees  may  be  supposed  to  have  rejected  all  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament,  except  the  Five  Books  of  Moses  ;  (9) 
and  some  modern  criticks  recognise  this  conjecture  as  pro- 
bable, because  Jesus,  on  a  certain  occasion,  sought  to  prove 
to  the  Sadducees  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  (which  they 
called  in  question),  not  from  the  Prophets  and  Hagiographa, 
but  merely  from  the  books  of  Moses,  just  as  if  they  attributed 
to  the  former  no  authority,  and  no  weight  in  the  decision  of  a 
doubtful  question,  (r) 

If  the  Sadducean  sect  arose  in  those  ancient  times,  when  at  ^ 

first  a  part  only  of  our  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  was         / 
extant,  then  a  difference  of  opinion  on  their  part,  in  regard  to 
the  number  of  the  books  which  belonged  to  it,  admits  of  being 
readily  explained :  they  received  only  those  Scriptures,  which 
were  recognised  as  sacred  before  their  separation,  but  reject- 
ed all  others,  because  the  authors  of  them  may  have  been 
Jevv's  not  belonging  to  their  sect.     But  as  they  first  separated 
from  the  great  mass  at  a  time,  when  the  Collection  of  Sacred 
Books  among  the  Jews  had  already  been  long  detennined  as      | 
to  its  extent,  and  their  Canon  had  been  completed  ;  as  it  must      1 
not  have  been  difficult  for  them  to  reconcile  their  tenets  with      ' 
ALL  Writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  when  they  accorded 
with  the  contents  of  the  books  of  Moses :  a  departure  from 
the  opinion  of  other  Jews,  on  this  point,  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected, and  is  hard  to  explain. 

Josephus,  who  was  so  minutely  informed  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  Pharisees,  knew  of  no  opinion  peculiar  to  the  Saddu- 
cees on  this  point.  He  relates  merely,  that  rejecting  all  tra- 
dition, they  adhered  only  to  the  written  law,  (s)  not  stating 
how  many  books  they  reckoned  in  their  sacred  national  writ- 


Xq)  J£RoME  inMatlh.;  Origen  contra  Celsum,  lib.  i. 

(r)  Matth.  xxii.  23;  Rich.  Simoiv,  Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.,  liv.  i.  c.  16. 

(s)  Josephus,  in  Antiqq.,  lib.  xni.  c.  18 ;  according  to  Havercamp, 
[  and  Hudson],  lib.  xin.  c.  10.  §.  6.  [  They  allege,  that  "  what  is  written 
ought  to  be  considered  the  law,  but  that  what  is  derived  from  the  tra- 
dition  of  the  fathers  is  not  to  be  observed."       Tr.  1 


Oj^  CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  24. 

ings.  And  if  he  mentions  the  doctrines,  by  which  the  Saddii*' 
cees  were  distinguished  from  the  Pharisees,  he  does  not  how- 
ever let  even  one  word  escape,  from  which  it  might  be  in^ 
ferred,  that  these  two  sects  may  have  thought  differently,  in 
regard  to  the  number  of  their  sacred  books.  How  could 
Sadducees  have  occupied  the  station  of  High  Priest,  if  they 
had  deviated,  on  so  important  a  point,  from  the  faith  of  the 
whole  nation  ?  And  after  a  Sadducean  family,  before  and  at 
the  time  of  Christ,  had  for  a  long  while  appropriated  to  itself 
this  preferment,  how  could  they  have  sanctioned  the  reading 
of  the  Haphtaroth  after  the  Pareshioth,  if  they  had  not  attri- 
buted to  the  Prophets  the  same  authority  which  they  ascribed 
to  Moses  ?  And  if  we  may  found  any  thing  on  the  subjects 
agitated  by  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  in  the  Talmud,  then 
indeed  Rabbi  Gamaliel  *  argued  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
not  only  from  the  books  of  Moses,  but  even  from  the  Prophets 
and  the  Hagiographa,  without  his  opponents,  the  Sadducees, 
having  objected  to  the  authority  and  the  weight  of  the  latter 
in  theological  controversies.  Nay,  more  than  this,  they 
endeavoured,  on  the  admission  of  the  authority  of  these 
books,  to  weaken  the  force  of  the  cited  passages  from  other 
considerations.  In  such  circumstances,  a  conjecture  of  the 
Fathers  cannot  at  all  invalidate  the  opinion,  that  the  views  of 
the  Sadducees  and  Pharisees  were  similar,  as  to  the  number 
of  the  sacred  national  books.  And  if  Christ,  in  disputing  with 
the  Sadducees,  proved  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  by  the 
five  books  of  Moses  only,  this  may  have  been  merely  acci* 
dental,  (t) 


*  [  The  passage  here  referred  to  is  Sanhedfin,  f.  90.  2  ;  and  is  given 
byMEUscHEN,  in  his  JVovum  Testamentum  ex  Talmude  el  antiquitatibus 
Hebraeorum  Ulusiratum.  See  his  illustration  of  Matth.  xxii.  29.  See 
also  Jahn's  Biblical  Archaiology  {translated  by  Upham),  P.  m.  c.  i. 
^.322.       Tr.  ] 

(t)  Basnage,  Hisloire  des  Juifs,  T.  ii.  P.  i.  p.  325  ff.,  and  from  him 
Brucker,  hist.  crit.  Phil.  T.  n.  p.  721.,  have  decided  this  question  in  the 
same  manner.  Basnage,  with  a  view  not  to  let  the  good  Fathers 
be  silenced,  would  only  assume,  that  the  Sadducees  ascribed  a  much 


CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  24.  25.       63 

It  was  therefore  the  Samaritans  alone,  who  received  the 
Pentateuch  only,  and  rejected  all  other  writings  of  our  pre- 
sent Canon.  Even  if  the  cause  of  their  rejection  were  un- 
known,* yet  nothing  would  result  from  this,  against  the  pre- 
sent extent  of  the  Hebrew  Canon.  They  can  inform  us  only 
of  the  private  opinion  of  their  body,  and  not  of  that  of  the 
Jews.  This  can  be  ascertained,  only  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, JosEPHus,  and  the  Christian  Writers  of  the  first  century 
after  the  birth  of  Christ,  from  a  Melito,  an  Origen,  a  Jerome, 
and  from  the  Talmud.  Even  the  later  Fathers  are  too  re- 
cent for  our  investigation. 


The  Neio  Testament. 

The  New  Testament,  in  numberless  passages  refers  to  the 
Old,  but  nowhere  enumerates  its  several  constituent  parts. 
In  truth,  this  was  not  to  be  expected.  If  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  refer  to  the  whole,  every  one  at  that  time  knew, 
and  if  he  did  not  know,  yet  it  was  in  his  power  to  ascertain 
with  requisite  certainty,  what  books  and  how  many  were 
comprehended  in  it.  We  must  therefore  avail  ourselves 
merely  of  casual  citations  of  particular  parts  of  it ;  and  for 
the  very  reason  that  they  are  merely  casual,  no  full  t  view  of 
the  Old  Testament  Canon,  as  to  its  whole  extent  and  as  to 
all  its  larger  and  smaller  parts,  can  be  expected  from  the  New 
Testament.   If  not  the  slightest  trace  of  many  particular  books 


greater  authority  to  the  Writings  of  Moses,  than  to  the  rest ;  but 
Brucker  has  already  given  the  proper  answer :  that  there  is  to  be  found 
no  proof  of  this,  and  there  is  no  necessity,  on  account  of  any  Fathers,  to 
make  use  of  this  desperate  resort.     It  is  possible,  they  were  mistaken. 

*  [  Our  author  has  treated  of  this,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  0.  T., 
Vd,  II.  §.  383.,  On  the  age  of  tfie  Samaritan  Pentateuch.       Tr.] 

t  [  See  the  Appendix  to  this  Treatise,  Note  [  A  ].       Tr.  ] 


64  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,    §.  "25.  26.  27. 

of  our  present  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  is  discovered  in 
the  New  ;  this  does  not  accordingly  pronounce  their  sentence 
of  condemnation.  For  the  argument,  derived  from  silence, 
could  then  only  be  demonstrated,  if  it  were  practicable  to  show, 
that  Christ  and  the  Apostles  must  have  spoken  of  each  book 
in  particular. 


§.  26. 

Quotations  iji  the  New  Testament. 

The  Quotations  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  are  of 
two  kinds.  *  Some  books  are  quoted  for  the  establishment  of 
religious  truths  ;  thus^  by  the  use  which  is  made  of  them,  they 
are  declared  to  be  divine  :  these,  therefore,  without  contro- 
versy, are  held  to  be  Canonical.  Others  are  only  cited  by 
the  way,  sometimes  for  illustration,  sometimes  for  parallels. 
To  the  first  class,  without  dispute,  belong  the  books  of  Moses, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  the  Psalms  ;  to  the  second,  all  our 
other  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  except  the  book 
of  Judges,  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  Esther, 
Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  which  are  not  once  cited. 


§.  27. 
2.  Josephus.     Born  A.  D.  37. 

Josephus,  next  to  the  New  Testament,  is  the  principal  wri- 
ter whom  it  is  necessary  to  consult,  in  examining  the  Canon 
of  Palestine.     He  was  t  a  cotemporary  of  the  Apostles,  and 


*  r  See  the  Appendix,  Note  [  B  ].      Tr.  ] 

t  [  On  the  life^  writings^  and  credibilily  of  Josephus,  and  also  on  his 
Hebrew  learning,  the  best  references  are  given  by  De  Wette  in  his 
Archaiology  (in  German),  the  introductory  part,  ?.  7.      Tr.  ] 


CAT^Oti  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  27.  28.  f)5 

US  a  priest,  must  have  had  the  best  knowledge  of  the  Canon 
of  his  nation,  since  in  the  temple,  as  it  appears,  there  was  re- 
posited  a  genuine  collection  of  the  canonical  books.  (§.  28.) 
He  was,  moreover,  a  sagacious  investigator  of  truth,  who  cer- 
tainly has  avoided  reckoning  among  the  sacred  Scriptures  of 
his  nation,  any  book  that  was  not  generally  acknowledged  to 
be  so,  lest  he  might  increase  the  number  of  objections  to  the 
Jewish  History,  (u)  It  is  therefore  much  to  be  regretted, 
that  he  nowhere  fully  exhibits  all  the  books  of  his  Canon,  and 
except  a  general  comprehensive  enumeration,  only  permits 
himself,  here  and  there  to  let  fall,  toward  a  precise  determina- 
tion of  it,  a  few  passing  words. 


§.  28. 

Whether  he  presents  the  general  opinion  of  his  brethren^  as  to 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 

He  has  never  applied  the  word  Kavwv  to  the  collection  of 
the  sacred  books  of  his  nation  ;  it  was  not  extant  in  this  sense 
at  his  day.  But  he  speaks  of  "  sacred  books,  composed  by 
*•  prophets,  before  the  death  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  and 
"  reposited  in  the  temple."  (v)  This  might  indeed  have  been 
Josephus'  actual  view  of  what  we  call  Kavwv. 

And  as  he  exhibits  this  view,  it  is  manifest,  that  as  a  Pharisee, 
he  entertained  no  opinion  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  deviated  from  the  opinion  of  his  other  brethren ;  or,  if 
he  were  inclined  to  a  peculiar  opinion,  that  he  does  not  ad- 
vance it,  at  least  in  the  passage  mentioned.  The  very  con- 
text, in  which  his  notice  of  the  Canonical  collection  of  the 
Writings  of  his  nation  stands,  and  the  general  comprehensive 


(u)  Read  his  celebrated  passage  contra  Ap.,  lib.  i.  §.  8.  at  the  com- 
mencement. -   . 
<»)  See  below,  §.  36.  note  (a),  contra  Ap,i  lib.  i.  $.  8.  'Ato  M»iia^(»i 


bii  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,   §.  "JS,.ii\). 

expression  does  not  admit  of  our  doubting  on  the  subject. 
Thus  he  says,  for  instance :  "  Since  Artaxerxes  up  to  our 
"  times,  ali  has  indeed  been  committed  to  writing  ;  but  these 
"  Scriptures  are  not  held  to  be  as  worthy  of  credit  as  those 
"  WTitten  at  an  earher  period."  IJad  Josephus  wished  to  present 
his  own  opinion  of  the  Canon,  differing  from  that  which  pre- 
vailed, he  would  undoubtedly  have  expressed  himself  in  terms 
more  restricted  :  "  I  do  not  consider  them  to  be  as  worthy  of 
credit  as  the  former,"  or  "  the  Pharisees  do  not  consider  them 
to  be  as  worthy  of  credit  as  the  former  " — especially,  as  he 
elsewhere  accurately  distinguishes  general  aiid  particular 
opinions. 

In  fine,  from  many  passages,  at  least  of  his  Antiquitie  s,  it 
is  probable,  that  although  he  had  attached  himself  to  the 
sect  of  the  Pharisees  in  his  youth,  he  left  it  in  his  maturer 
years.  Now  as  he  wrote  his  books  against  Apion  at  a  later 
period  than  his  Antiquities,  he  cannot  possibly  there  follow^ 
the  principles  of  the  Pharisees,  (zv) 


§.  29. 

Principal  Passage, 

Josephus,  in  the  celebrated  passage  against  Apion,  designs 
to  prove  the  credibility  of  the  Hebrew  historians,  and  of  the 
history  itself  at  the  same  time.  He  refers  therefore,  partly  to 
the  accordance  of  profane  history  with  that  of  the  Jews, 
partly  to  the  great  care  with  which  the  historical  books  of  his 
nation  had  been  composed.  None  of  the  Hebrew  historical 
books  stands  in  contradiction  to  the  others,  because  not  every 
person  was  permitted  at  pleasure  to  record  the  Hebrew  history, 
but  Prophets  were  the  only  historians  of  the  nation.     Then 


(w)  SpiTTLER  de  usu  Versioiiis  Alexandrine  apud  Joseph.uro-     Got 
tingen^  1779.  pp.  4,  5.  , 


t;ANON  OF  TflE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  29.  6'/ 

commences  the  important  passage,  which  is  given  also  by 
EusEBius  with  some  trifling  variations,  (a) 

fA^wv  $vo  ds  fAova  •n'^og  Tor^  «'/xoO'»  /3»/3X»(X,  tou  iravro^  e^ovra  Xfovou 
<ri9v  dvay^acpigv,  to,  ^ixalod^  dsra  (y)  •are'ffissufxeva,  Kai  roili-wv  crgWs 
(X6V  ^^»  TO.  Mwutfs'w?,  a  roCs  rs  vo'ffcoug  'T'e^is'^g*  xa/  ri^v  t»jj  dv^^wcro- 
•yoviag  flra^a^otfiv,  fA£'x§»  T/^g  aCrou  tsXsut'^s.  Ourog  6  X^o'vo^  d<jro- 
XsjVsi  r^i(f-)(i'kiuv  oXj'yov  srwv.  'Affo  5^  roj^  Mcoutfswj  TsXeur^g 
f*-X^'  '"^^  A^TO^g'^lou,  70U  ftSTd  Hs^|>iv  ns^rfwv  ^atfjXs'w^,  d^x^^i  {^) 
q]  ^stoL  Muiio^v  cf^o(p>JToc»  Td  xar'  auroug  'X^a'/PivTOL  tfuvsy^a-j^av  ^v 
r^itfi  xa/  5e'xa  (BifSXiotg,  A]  ^s  Xoi-jra/  Ts(f<fa^s  v^vovs  Big  rov 
®sov  xai  Tor^  dv^^w'B'oj^  vTro6r}xas  tov  ^jou  Trs^iiyov(ftv,  'Aato  5s 
A^rofg^lou  (J-sx?'  "^^^^  '^"^'  ^JM-^  x^ovou  'yiy^aifrai  fAsv  sxa^a*  'n'feswg 
iJs  oux  oixoiag  rj^ioirai  Trig  "j*  *^o  aurwv,  5<d  to  jm,-)^  ysvsV^aj  s-i^v  qrojv 
^^0(priTWv  dx^i/353  &a5oxV«  A^Xov  5'  ^^<v  s^yw,  cfw^  ^j/xsr^  rofg  i^i'oig 
y^dfi/fAaffi  ifsiriisuxaij.sv,  j  TotfouTou  yd^  a<wvoj  ijdri  ^a^wx^ixoroj, 
©yra  9r|o(J'd£rvai  rig  ou5sv,  (a)  oi;ts  d^peXsrv  (6)  auTwv,  oUts  fxeradsrvat 
^sroXfiwiXff.  ndtfi  5s'  ^^^/^(puTov  e^iv  su^ug  ^x  r^jg  'if^CiTrig  ygvstfswg 
Iou5a»o»ff,  TO  vo|xi^£<v  (c)  aurd  0eou  56yfjia<ra,  xai  rovTotg  ii^iivsiVy  [d) 
xai  u^rs^  auTWV,  si  dioiy  6vr,(fxsiv  tj^s'w^. 

"  For  we  have  not  innumerable  books,  which  contradict 
each  other ;  but  only  twenty-two,  which  comprise  the  history 
of  all  times  past,  and  are  justly  held  to  be  credible,  {according 


(x)  JosEPHUs  contra  Ap.,  lib.  i.  §.  8;  compare  Eusebius  in  his  Hisi. 
Ecd'Wb.  10.  p.  m.  103. 104.  [  The  passage  in  Eusebius  is  to  be  found 
in  Book  iii.  c.  10.,  at  the  beginning,       Tr.  ] 

*  [  Qy  /uugiauTif  oh  url  fiiBhietv  tta^  fjfjiir,  according  to  Euse- 
bius.      Tr.  ] 

Cy)  The  word  fiiT*  is  wanting  in  the  ancient  editions  of  Josephus;  it 
has  been  introduced  from  Eusebius  in  modern  times. 

(a)  MostCod.  M^.  of  Josephus  and  Eusebius  omit  this  a§;t»f'  [  '* 
is  omitted  in  the  Mayence  edition  of  Eusebius,  an.  1672.  Tr.  ]  See  be- 
low, §.  30. 

t  L  '■o'^f  ^"^  Eusebius,  and  in  Hudson's  edition  of  Josephus.       Tr.  J 

%  [  ir»c    »At«ic    TTgoa-t^sy    toic    i^/otc    y^aifAfxAo-i,  in  Eusebius.       Tr,  ] 

(a)  OwcTiv  is  wanting  in  Eusebius.     The  sense  is  the  same. 

(6)  Eusebius  has:  a<j>«x«iy   atf'  ahtm. 

(c)  The  false  reading  ofOfAoi^ui  «yr*'  has  been  thus  corrected  from 
Eusebius. 

(d)  In  Evismvs,  tpfAhm, 


68  CATIOX  OF  THE  OLD  TESTjVMENT,  §.  29.  30. 

to  EusEBius  :  and  are  justly  held  to  be  divine).  Five  of  these 
books  proceed  from  Moses  ;  they  contain  laws,  and  accounts 
of  the  origin  of  men,  and  extend  to  his  death.  Accordingly, 
they  include  not  much  less  than  a  period  of  three  thousand 
years.  From  the  death  of  Moses  onward  to  the  reign  of  Ar- 
taxerxes,  {according  to  Eusebius  :  from  the  death  of  Moses 
to  the  death  of  Artaxerxes),  who,  after  Xerxes,  reigned 
over  the  Persians,  the  prophets  who  lived  after  Moses 
have  recorded,  in  thirteen  books,  what  happened  in  their 
time.  The  other  four  books  contain  Songs  of  praise  to 
God,  and  Rules  of  life  for  man.  Since  Artaxerxes  up 
to  our  time,  every  thing  has  been  recorded  ;  but  these  writ- 
ings are  not  held  to  be  so  worthy  of  credit,  as  those  written 
earlier,  because  after  that  time  there  was  no  regular  succes- 
sion of  prophets.  What  faith  we  attribute  to  our  Scriptures 
is  manifest  in  our  conduct.  For  although  so  great  a  period 
has  already  elapsed,  no  one  has  yet  undertaken,  either  to  add 
any  thing,  or  to  take  away,  or  to  alter  any  thing.  For  it  is, 
so  to  speak,  innate  with  all  Jews,  [  from  their  veiy  birth  ],  to 
hold  these  books  to  be  God's  instructions,  and  firmly  to  stand 
by  them,  nav,  if  necessity  required,  gladly  to  die  in  their  be- 
half." 

§.  30. 

Why  Josephus  closes  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  with 
Artaxerxes  Longimanus. 

As  a  consequence  of  this  passage,  Josephus  reckons  all 
those  Writings  among  the  canonical,  which  were  written  from 
the  timeof  Moses  until  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus. 
With  the  reign  (  d^x'^  )  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  the  collec- 
tion was  closed — a  very  general  determination,  by  which,  even 
Writings  that  were  composed  during  Artaxerxes'  reign  belong 
to  the  canon.  It  is  worth  while  to  examine,  why  Josephus  ex- 
pressed himself  in  terms  so  general  ? 

Had  he  known  a  year,  in  which  the  Canon  had  been  com- 
pleted in  a  solemn  manner,  or  a  person  who  had  established 
it,  he  would  certainly  have  specified  this  more  precise  deter^ 
mination  of  time.     Most  probably,  both  were  unknown  to 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  <S,  30.         69 

him.  Notwithstanding  this,  he  was  obliged  and  he  also  wished 
to  state  the  time,  since  which  no  books  had  been  written,  in 
as  great  a  degree  worthy  of  credit — there  was  therefore  no 
means  remaining,  but  to  take  the  collection  itself,  to  ascertain 
the  latest  book  in  it,  and  to  determine  the  time  to  which 
this  belonged.  Now  the  book  o/*  Esther  was  either  actually, 
or  at  least  in  the  opinion  of  Josephus,  the  latest  among  them 
all ;  it  belonged,  either  actually,  or  at  least  in  the  opinion  of 
Josephus,  to  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus  ;  (e)  accord- 
ingly, he  closes  the  canon  with  his  reign.  (/) 


(e)  Of  this  we  have  Josephus' own  acknowledgment;  Antiq.,  xi. 
c.  6.  $.  1.  fF.  "Ey^a.'^i  /«  M3t.^^oj(^*ios  roig  h  tm  ^A^rit^i^^ou  ^na^i- 
jisajf  ^aa-tv  'loytTa/oic,  nrcturite  7rct^x<puXaia-a-iiv  rite  ;)/ueg*c,  »««  togTwr 
ayuf  AuTciff  k.  t.  X.  [  These  words  occur  near  the  close  of  §,  13: 
And  Mordecai  wrote  to  the  Jews  who  lived  under  the  reign  of  Artax- 
erxes, to  observe  these  days,  and  to  commemorate  them  by  a  festival. 

(/)  The  Zurich  Library  objects  :  "The  book  of  Esther  Josephus 
"  professes  to  enumerate  in  the  Canon,  together  with  all  books  written 
'*  under  Artaxerxes,  and  with  this  he  would  close  the  Canon ;  as  if  he 
■"  could  not  close  it  with  Nehemiah,  whose  history  necessarily  goes 
*'  back  to  the  beginning  of  Artaxerxes'  reign,  or  with  Malachi,  whose 
""  real  time  is  not  known !  Both  might  have  been  written  under  the  Ar- 
■"  taxerxes  of  Josephus.  The  book  of  Esther  was  probably  first  written 
•"  after  Artaxerxes,  under  whom  the  historical  facts  purport  to  have 
•'  taken  place.  Already  indeed,  as  is  mentioned  in  the  tenth  Chapter, 
"  there  was  on  record,  in  the  Chronicles  of  the  Persian  Kings,  all  that 
'*  had  taken  place,  after  the  elevation  of  Mordecai,  as  long  as  Mordecai 
•"  sat  at  the  helm.  At  least,  that  is  alleged.  And  if  we  even  refer  to 
•'  the  Greek  subscription  in  the  Supplement,  the  book  was  first  publish- 
"  ed  by  an  unknown  person,  in  a  translation,  at  the  time  of  the  Ptole- 
"  mies  in  Egypt."  So  far  the  long  objection, — to  the  force  of  which 
nothing  more  is  wanting,  than  that  our  opinion  of  the  time,  to  which  the 
book  of  Esther,  or  the  history  of  it  belongs,  or  that  the  opinion  oithc 
Author  of  the  Greek  translation  on  this  point  should  influence  the  ques- 
tion agitated.  AH  results  in  Josephus'  views  of  it }  he  must  still  be  his 
own  interpreter ;  and  according  to  his  express  declaration,  the  book  of 
Esther  belongs  to  the  time  of  Artaxerxes.  He  could  not  close  the  Ca- 
non of  the  Old  Testament  with  Nehemiah,  because  he  placed  him  and 
his  historical  book  in  the  time  of  Xerxes.  Nor  could  Josephus  make 
Malachi  the  most  recent  book,  ('even  were  it  the  most  recent ),  be- 
cause it  was  unknown  to  him?  under  Avhich  Persian  reign  he  way  have 
proraulged  his  account?. 


70  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,   §.30.  31. 

"  But  why  does  he  not  rather  say :  Esther  is  the  latest 
book  ?"  Perhaps,  because  this  determination  of  the  time, 
when  the  Canon  became  complete,  was  not  generally  under- 
stood, and  it  was  requisite  previously  to  examine  anew,  what 
was  the  date  of  the  book  of  Esther  ;  perhaps,  with  a  view  to 
elude  the  objection :  that  Esther  was  not  found  at  the  end  !  In 
truth,  Esther  might  have  always  been  the  latest  book,  and  yet 
not  occupy  the  last  place  in  the  Canon,  because,  according  to 
the  plan  of  the  collector  of  the  Canon,  the  Supplementary 
Records  of  the  whole  scripture  history,  the  books  of  Chro- 
nicles, must  have  closed  the  collection,  and  moreover,  ac- 
cording to  the  New  *  Testament,  it  did  then  actually  close  it, 
as  in  our  present  editions. 

How  many  difficulties  are  removed  by  this  remark  founded 
on  the  writings  of  Josephus,  and  how  many  questions  are  at 
once  answered  by  it,  may  be  perceived  on  its  application  to 
the  modern  controversies  relative  to  the  Canon. . 

According  to  Eusebius  and  most  nianuscripts  of  Josephus, 
the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  first  closed  with  the 
DEATH  of  Artaxerxes — a  determination,  which  does  not 
much  differ,  at  least  in  sense,  from  the  preceding. 


§.  3L 
Whi/  Josephus  recognises  XKii  Canonical  Books. 

According  to  Josephus,  the  Hebrews  had  xxii  sacred 
BOOKS.  He  thus  reckons  with  his  nation,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  Alphabet.      For  Origen,  and  other  Fathers  say 


*  [  Our  author  observes,  in  his  Introd,  to  the  O.  T.,  Vol.  i.  §.  7: — 
Christ  entitles  the  Hagiograplia  by  the  Psalms,  as  the  first  book,  (Luke 
XXIV.  44,)  ;  and  designing  to  adduce,  from  the  history  of  the  O.  T.,  ihe 
first  and  the  last  instance  of  the  shedding  of  innocent  blood,  he  cites  the 
case  of  Abel  from  Genesis,  as  the  Jirst  book  of  the  O.  T. ;  and  from  the 
books  of  Chronicles,  as  the  last  of  all,  he  cites  the  case  of  Zacharia?. 
Matt,  xxiii.  35.      Tr.] 


CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAftfENT,  §.  31.  3^2.  7i 

expressly,  (§  §.  43,  44.)  that  in  the  Canon,  a  reference  was 
had  to  the  number  of  consonants  in  the  Hebrew  Alphabet ; 
even  analogy*  confirms  this.  Therefore,  if  properly 
reckoned  the  Jews  had  strictly  but  twenty- two  books,  we 
may  perhaps  so  arrange  merely  those  extant,  that  they  will 
admit  of  being  restored  to  twenty-two. 


§.  32. 
1.  General  Computation. 

Five  books  belonged  to  Moses ;  thirteen  were  composed 
by  Prophets  between  Moses  and  Artaxerxes  Longimanus ; 
beside  these,  there  were  also  extant  four  books  on  moral 
subjects. 

If  we  may  follow  a  later  writer,  Origen,  who  with  Josephus 
states  the  number  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  be  twenty-two,  and  enumerates  them  all  severally,  we 
might  arrange  the  thirteen  of  the  Second  Class  in  this  man- 
ner : 

1.  Joshua.  7.  Esther. 

2.  Judges  and  Ruth.  8.  Isaiah. 

3.  TWO  BOOKS  OF  Samuel.  9.  Jeremiah's  prophecies 

AND  LAMENTATIONS. 

4.  TWO  BOOKS  OF  KiNGS.        10.  EzEKIEL. 

5.  TWO  BOOKS  OF  Chronicles.    11.  Daniel. 

6.  FIRST  AND  SECOND  BOOK  OF      12.    TWELVE  MINOR  PROPHETS. 

Ezra,  Ezra  AND  Nehemiah.    13.  Job. 
The  four  books  on  moral  subjects  would  be  : 

1.  Psalms.  3.  Ecclesiastes. 

2.  Proverbs.  4.  the  Song  of  Solomon. 


*  [The  Greeks  made  the  books  of  Homftr,  and  those  of  Theophras- 
lus  to  consist  of  twenty-four,  according  to  the  nmnber  of  the  Greek  let»- 
ters.    See  the  author's  Introduction  to  the  O.  T.,  Vol.  i.  $,  6,      Tr  ] 


72       CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  32,  33. 

But  was  it  a  pure  fountain  from  which  Origen  drew  ?  Had 
not  the  great  revolutions,  which  affected  the  Hebrew  nation 
between  the  times  of  Josephus  and  Origen,  a  prejudicial  in- 
fluence even  on  the  collection  of  their  canonical  books  ? 
During  this  time,  either  from  ignorance,  accident,  or  fraud, 
had  there  not  been  introduced  into  the  canonical  collection, 

writings  which  did  not  previously  belong  to  it  ? Thus  may 

we  propose  inquiries ;  and  although  much  may  be  said  in  reply, 
yet  it  is  more  advisable,  and  more  worthy  of  the  investigator 
of  truth,  to  avoid  pursuing  this  course ;  so  that  no  one  may 
have  it  in  his  power,  at  any  time  to  reproach  him  with  the  least 
appearance  of  probability,  and  say  that  he  is  disposed  to  catch 
at  something,  or  to  build  all  upon  hypotheses. 

Josephus  may  be  his  own  Commentator :  we  design  to  ask 
for  his  views,  in  regard  to  particular  writings  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  on  his  answers  below  to  ground  a  new  computation. 


§.33. 

2.  Vakticvlak  Computation,     Prefatory  remarks. 

I  premise  some  observations,  which  may  perhaps  shed  light 
upon  the  passages,  that  I  shall  extract  from  Josephus,  and 
may  direct  our  decision  on  them. 

1.  All  the  Writings,  which  Josephus  attributes  to  Prophets, 
belonged  to  his  Canon.  For  he  founds  the  chief  credibility 
and  integrity  of  the  writings  of  his  nation  upon  this,  that  they 
were  the  works  of  Prophets.  (§.  28.  29.) 

2.  He  undoubtedly  declares  those  writings  to  be  canonical, 
which  he  calls  'iSPai  (Si^Xoty  al  <rwv  js^wv  y^a(pwv  /3i/3Xo»,  Is^cc 
v^ajx^aaTa,  to,  ^v  <r^  i£^w  dvaksifisva  y^ajXfxaTa,  and  /3jjSXoi  'S'^ocpt;- 
csias,  [  Sacred  Books,  the  Books  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
the  Writings  reposited  in  the  Temple,  and  Books  of  Pro- 
phecy ].  This  is  apparent  from  the  words  selected,  and  the 
passages  to  be  adduced  below  leave  no  doubt  of  it  what- 
everc 


CANON  OF  THK  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  33.         73 

3.  With  the  expressions  above  mentioned  the  following  are 
synonymous :  oi^aTa  /3»/SXja,  /3i/3Xoi  'E/3^aiwv,  ^j'^Xoj  'E^ai^ 
xai  [  Ancient  Books,  Booksof  the  Hebrews,  Hebrew  Books  ]. 
This  is  undoubtedly  certain  from  several  passages. — He  regard- 
ed Daniel  as  a  very  important  Prophet,  the  accurate  accom- 
plishment of  whose  predictions  he  often  commends  in  very 
strong  language  (§.  35.).  And  yet  he  reckons  his  book  merely 
among  the  /3/^Xoj  'E(3^aixM,  and  d^x'^Toc  ^ifSXia  [  Books  of  the 
Hebrews,  and  Ancient  Books  ],  from  which  he  derives  his 
history.  After  he  has  extracted  much  from  Daniel,  he 
adds  (g) :  "  Let  no  one  find  fault  with  me,  for  introducing  all 
"  into  my  writings,  just  as  I  find  it  m  the  ancient  Books  {iv 
*«  roTs  d^uiois  /Jj/SXjoj^).  For  in  the  very  beginning  of  my 
"  history,  I  have  already  secured  myself,  in  regard  to  those 
"  who  might  require  or  find  fault  with  any  thing,  by  mention- 
"  ing,  that  I  should  merely  translate  into  Greek  the  Hebrew 
"  BOOKS  ( 'E/3^a/wv  ^j/3Xoj5 ),  without  adding  any  thing  of  my 
"  own,  or  taking  away  any  thing." 

According  to  this  passage,  Daniel,  a  book  replete  with 
prophecies,  written  by  a  prophet,  belongs  to  the  ^J^Xot  *E.^- 
^ai'wv  [  Books  of  the  Hebrews  ],  and  to  the  d^x°'-"^  /5</3Xja 
[  Ancient  Books  ].  —  In  another  place,  he  cites  the  incidents 
which  befel  Jonah,  just  as  they  stand  recorded  in  the  prophet 
Jonah,  with  the  introduction  only  of  his  own,  sometimes 
erroneous,  explanations ;  but  at  the  same  time  he  observes  {h) : 
that  he  relates  of  the  prophet,  "  what  he  found  concerning 
him  in  the  Hebrew  books  ( 'El3^a'ixa7g  f3i(3Xmg ) :" — clearly 
proving,  that  by  the  jSiSXoi  E[3^dixai  [  Hebrew  books  ],  he 
understood  the  canonical  writings  of  his  brethren. 

4.  All  the  Writings,  which  he  transferred  into  the  history 
of  his  nation  until  the  time  of  Artaxerxes,  must  have  been 
comprehended  in  Josephus'  Canon.     For 

I.  Josephus  grounds  the  very  credibility  of  the  Hebrew 
history  from  Moses  to  Artaxerxes  upon  this,  that  it  was  writ- 


(s;)  Antiqq.,  x.  c.  10.  §.  6.  ed.  Havercamp,  p.  536.  [Hudson,  p.  458-  ]' 
(h)  Antiqq.,  ix.  c.  10.  «.  3.  Hav.  p.  497.  [  Hud,  p.  41P.  1 

10 


74         CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  33. 

ten  ONLY  AND  ALONE  BY  Prophets,  and  that  there  were 
extant  no  other  historical  books,  than  those  composed  by 
them,  (i)  Therefore  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrews  until  Ar- 
taxerxes  Longimanus,  he  can  have  assumed  none  whatsoever, 
except  these.     So  also 

II.  The  most  satisfactory  evidence  proves  it.  We  find 
those  historical  books  which  he  expressly  places  in  his  Canon, 
for  instance,  the  five  books  of  Moses,  the  book  of  Joshua,  the 
books  of  Kings  (§.  35.),  in  substance  wholly  incorporated  with 
his  Antiquities.     Of  the  very  same  repute,  therefore,  were  the 

other  sources  of  his  national  history  until  Artaxerxes. In 

the  mean  time  it  is  not  to  be  denied,  that  he  presents  ac- 
counts, even  in  the  ancient  Hebrew  history,  of  which  no  trace 
is  to  be  found  in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Probably,  he  derived  these  from  national  traditions,  which  in 
his  time  were  numerous,  yet  not  put  on  record,  but  only  trans- 
mitted from  mouth  to  mouth.  Thus,  for  instance,  Paul  refers 
to  a  mere  tradition,  when  he  makes  Jannes  and  Jambres  with- 
stand Moses  in  the  miracles  wrought  before  Pharaoh  (2  Tim. 
iii.  8.) :  a  tradition,  which  even  Pseudo- Jonathan  has  intro- 
duced into  his  targum,  Exod.  i.  15 ;  vii.  11. 

5.  All  Hebrew  books  of  every  kind,  which  were  extant  in 
the  time  of  Josephus,  from  the  times  before  the  death  of  Ai*- 
taxerxes,  he  deems  without  exception  canonical.  For  he  con- 
cludes his  account  of  the  Canon  of  his  nation  with  the  remark : 
that  all  books,  the  authors  of  which  may  have  lived  after  Ar- 
taxerxes Longimanus,  were  of  much  less  value.  Had  he  not 
attributed  the  same  value  and  the  same  authority  to  all  books, 
written  before  the  time  mentioned  ;  he  would  not  have  thrown 
all  into  ONE  class,  and  not  have  derived  all  from  Prophets, 
but  have  carefully  distinguished  those  which  were  of  inferior 
authority.  If  then  it  can  only  be  proved  of  any  book,  1.  that 
Joseph  us  was  acquainted  with  it,  and  2.  that  it  was  not  writ- 
ten  after  Artaxerxes :  that  book  is  to  be  placed  in  the  Canon 
of  Josephus. 


(i)  Contra  ^p.,  lib.  i.  ^.8;  quoted  above,  ^.  ^, 


CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  33.  34.       75 

6.  All  the  books  which  were  composed  after  Artaxerxes, 
in  Ihe  opinion  of  Josephus  must  have  been  apocrvphal,  even 
granting  that  their  contents  carry  us  back  into  that  king's 
reign,  {k) 


§.34. 

Division  of  the  opinions  of  Josephus  on  particular  books  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

These  observations  may  now  be  appropriately  followed  by 
Josephus'  opinions  on  particular  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. (/)  For  the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  examination,  I 
arrange  them  in  three  classes  : — 

1.  Books,  which  he  places  expressly  among  the  Sacred  Writings  of  his 
nation. 

2.  Books,  of  tvhich,  toithiut  this  express  testimony,  he  makes  a  mere 
literary  use. 

3.  Books,  which  he  entirely  passes  over  in  silence. 


(Jc)  The  doubts,  which  Spittler  suggests,  (in  his  Program  de  usu 
versionis  Alexandrinae  apud  Josephum,  pp.  18 — 22,)  as  to  the  validity  of 
Josephus'  account  of  the  Canon,  are  in  my  view  resolved,  as  soon  as  a 
reference  is  made  to  all  the  passages,  in  which  Josephus  directly  or  in- 
directly expresses  an  opinion  on  the  books  of  the  O.  T.  To  the  ac- 
complishment of  this,  I  hope  to  contribute  in  the  following  paragraphs. 

(/)  A  good  collection  of  these  has  already  been  made  by  Chr.  Fred, 
ScHMiD  in  two  Programs,  entitled:  Enarratio  sententise  Flavii  Joseph 
de  libris  V.  T.  mttcnh,,  1777, 


"76  CAXO.V  OF  'i'HK  OLl>  TE-SXAMENTy  0.  35. 


First  Class.     Books  which  Josephus  places  expressly 
among  the  Sacred  Writings  of  his  nation. 

§.35, 

Five  books  of  Moses,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Daniel^ 
Jonah,  Nahitm,  Ha&gai,  Zeghariah,  Joshua,  Books  oif 
Kings,  Psalms. 

The  five  books  of  Moses  Jasephus  mentions  in  the  pas- 
sage above  cited,  expressly  ;  and  moreover,  where  he  alludes 
to  them,  lie  speaks  of  them  with  great  veneration  and  rever- 
ence. He  calls  them  is^ai  ^j/3Xoj  [  Sacred  Books  ]  (m),  and 
a\  Twv  Is^wv  y^a^wv  /3j,^Xo»  [  the  Books  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures ].  in) 

Isaiah.  His  prophecies  he  calls,  in  the  account  that  Cyrus 
read  the  very  oracle  respecting  him  :  to  ^i^Xlov,  o  rris  auroj 
'T^acpYiTsiag  'Hifaias  xoltsXivs,  'rt^h  irCJv  6iaxo(fiuv  xai  Sixa  [the 
book  of  prophecy,  which  Isaiah  left,  two  hundred  and  ten 
years  before  ].  (o)  Elsewhere  he  calls  him  simply  -tt^o^V'J^ 
[  Prophet]  (p)f  and  in  the  biography  of  Hezekiah:  6  -rr^ocpvJTyj?, 


(m)  Anliq.,  lib.  i.  Hav.  p.  5.  [  Hud.  p.  4.  ],  at  the  end  of  the  preface ; 
lib.  in.  c.  5.  $.  2.  Hav.  p.  128.  [  Hud.  p.  103. 1,  lib.  iv.  c  8.  §.  48.  Hav. 
p.  255.  [  Hud.  p.  176.  ],  lib.  ix.  c.  2.  ^V  2.  Hav.  p.  476.  [  Hud.  p.  396,  ], 
lib.  X.  ft.  4.^.  2.  p.  517.  ed.  Havercamp,  which  I  always  quote.  [In 
Hudson's  edition,  p.  439.  Wherever,  in  this  treatise,  the  author  quotes 
the  page  of  Joscphus  according  to  the  edition  of  Havercamp,  the  cor- 
responding page  is  given  according  to  the  edition  of  Hudson,  Oxoniij 
1720.       Tr.  ] 

(n)  Conlra  Ap.,  lib.  ii.  $.  4.  Hav.  p.  1472.  [  Hud.  p.  1365.  ]  Many- 
other  passages  are  expressive  of  the  reverence,  Avith  which  Josephus 
and  his  brethren  spoke  of  the  Mosaick  Writings.  Ant.,  i.  Hav.  p.  4. 
[  Hud.  pp.  3.  4,  ]  ;  xx.  c.  5.  Hav.  p.  966.  [Hud.  p.  888.  ] ;  in.  c.  6.  Hav. 
p.  135.  [  Hud.  p.  110.  ];  iv.  c.  8.  Hav.  p.  251.  [  Hud.  p.  173.  ]  ;  x.  c.  4. 
Hav.  p.  517.  C  Hud.  p.  439.  ]  ;  xvi.  c.  6.  Hav.  p.  800.  [  Hud.  p.  722.] 

(o)  ^ntiq.,  XI.  c.  1.  §.  2.  Hav.  p.  547.  [  Hud.  p.  468.  ] 

(/J)  Antiq.,  X.  c.  2.  §,  2.  Hav.  p.  514.  f  Hud.  p.  436.  ] 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  35.         77 

9ra^'  ou  (  'Efjsxiag )  flravr'  dx^i/3wj  <ra,  (jLsXXovra  s-ruv^avsTo,  [  the 
prophet,  from  whom  he  (Hezekiah)  minutely  ascertained  all 
that  would  come  to  pass].  (7) 

jEREiuriAH  is  called  -f^ocpV*)?*  0^  ^«'  fAs'XXovra  tt)  croXsi  ^sfva 
'jf^osxvj^u^Sy  [  the  prophet,  who  predicted  the  evils  that  would 
befal  the  city]  (r)»  by  which  the  contents  of  his  prophecies 
are  well  characterized. 

EzEKiEL  is  cited  under  the  appellation  '^^ocprirvig  [  Prophet  ], 
and  his  prophecies  are  compared  to  the  prophecies  of  Jere- 
miah. (5) 

Our  Daniel  Josephus  places  among  the  «fi^a  y^a^nkroL  [  Sa- 
cred Writings  ]  (f),  he  entitles  his  prophecies  ^^ocprirsja  -tt^o 
TST^axotfjwv  xa«  6x<rw  ysvo/xsvrj  Jtwv,  [a  prediction,  made  four 
hundred  and  eight  years  previous  ]  (w),  and  he  expresses  him- 
self elsewhere  in  very  strong  terras,  as  to  the  truth  of 
them,  iv) 


(g)  Antiq.,  ix.  c.  13.  §.  3.  Hav.  p.  506.  [  Hud.  p.  427.  ] 
(r)  Antiq.,  x.  c.  5.  ^.  1.  Hav.  p.  520.  [  Hud.  p.  441.  ]     See  the  follow- 
ing note. 

(s)  The  same.  Outoc  0  rgo^wrxc  ("l«gi^/*f )  kaI  ti,  /uIaxovt*  tm 
5r9AM  S'iivA  7rgcgKi7gy|«,  h  yg9fxiA,avi  KATAXtTreey,  kai  tjjv  »Sr  «<}>' 
i^j^tfr    ^fvojub»y    xhacrtv    t»v     Ti    ^n^uXeeviAV     ai^s^tv.      Ov    /uSvoy    i"* 

Kinxoi.  [This  Prophet  (Jeremiah)  also  predicted  the  evils  that  would 
befal  the  city,  leaving  behind  him,  in  writing,  both  the  destruction  which 
has  now  come  pass  in  our  day,  and  the  Babylonian  captivity.  And  not 
only  did  he  predict  these  things  to  the  people,  but  the  prophet  Ezekiel 
did  the  same.       Tr.  ] 

(0  ^ntiq.,  lib.  X.  c.  10.  $.  4.  Hav.  p.  535.  [  Hud.  p.  447.  ]  After 
having  adduced  something  from  Daniel,  he  concludes  with  the  words : 
"  Whosoever  wishes  to  examine  this,"  tnzcvS'aira'To  to  ^i^xiov  ayuy- 
yuvAl  Tov  Azviiixov  ivgyivn  Ss  tcuto  iv  roh  hgoli  ygv.fxfxAa-r  [let 
him  carefully  read  the  book  of  Daniel.  He  will  find  it  among  the  Sa- 
cred Writings  ].     Comp.  above,  §.  33,  note  (/.) 

(m)  Antiq.,  lib.  xii.  c.  7.  §.  6.  Hav.  p.  617.  [  Hud.  p.  540.  ] 
(r)  Aniiq.,  lib.  x.  c.  11.  $.  7.  Hav.  p.  544.  [  Hud.  p.  466.  ]  T-ttCT* 
rrayrat  «<cfc7ifOf,  0€cu  Sn^AVToi  aVTcf,  avyytd-^Ac  JtATtKei^iv,  as"*  tovs 
avat^eVtoV/eovTatc,  kolI  fu.  au/x^xivovrtt  o-kovovvta?,  d-etujuid^uv  ini  t« 
TTA^d  TOO  ^6ov  T/WM  Toif  Aotv/»xoj'.  [  All  thcse  things,  God  having 
communicated  them  to  him,  he  left  in  writing,  so  that  those  who  read, 


78  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,   §.35. 

The  XII  MINOR  Prophets  Josephus  regards  as  one  hook, 
calls  them  ^a>Sr/.a  tov  d^j^fAov  [twelve  in  number],  and  ranks 
them,  on  account  of  their  accurately  fulfilled  prophecies,  with 

the  prophet  Isaiah,  (w) Some  of  them  moreover,  he  cites 

especially. 

Jonah  he  declares  to  be  a  true  Prophet  ;  hence  he  de- 
scribes the  remarkable  incidents  of  his  life  in  such  a  manner, 
that  it  may  be  perceived,  he  drew  from  the  account  set  forth 
by  Jonas  himself,  but  with  the  introduction  of  his  own,  some- 
times very  erroneous,  explanations,  although  he  cites  only  in 
very  general  terms,  and  refers  to  the  /3i^Xoi  'E^^aixai  [  the 
Hebrew  Books  ].  (a?) 

Even  Nahum  is  entitled  •jr^otpV'JS  [Prophet],  and  com- 
mended on  account  of  the  minute  accomplishment  of  his  pre- 
dictions, (y) 

Haggai  and  Zechariah  are  called  Svo  <r^o{p^c^at  [  two  Pro- 
phets ].  (z) 

The  BOOK  OF  Joshua  Josephus  denotes  one  of  the  books 
reposited  in  the  temple,  (a) 


and  see  the  events,  are  led  to  behold  Daniel  with  wonder,  on  account 
of  the  honour  which  God  conferred  upon  him.  Tr.  ].  Josephus  cites 
moreover  the  first  eight  chapters  of  Daniel ;  Antiq.,  lib.  x.  c.  10.  &  11. 
(u>)  Antiq.,  x.  c.  2.  $.  2.  Hav.  p.  .515.  [  Hud.  p.  436.  ].  KatX  obx, 
ewToc  fjiovos  b  5rog9»T«f  ('Ho-a/itf),  aXA.a  »«ic  ^AXoc  S'aJ'tKa  Toy 
agid'Moy  ro  avro  iTro'iMCAV.  Kstt  Traty,  i<t«  ay*^ov  %iri  *«wxov  yi- 
ysTAi  TTn^'  ifAiv,  KtLtti.  <Ti>v  iKsivuv  aTTO^Aivn  ■^gofnTUAV.  [  And  not 
this  prophet  (Isaiah)  alone,  but  others  also,  twelve  in  number,  did  the 
same.  And  whether  good  or  evil  happens  to  us,  all  comes  to  pass  ac- 
cording to  their  prediction.      Tr.  ] 

(x)  Antiq.,  ix.  c.  10.  $.  1.  2.  Hav.  pp.  497.  498.  [  Hud.  pp.  418.  419.]. 
tojJt»   (it  is  said  §.  1.)   T:^ci(^>iTivc!i    tU    ^imetc.  $.  2.  he  refers  in  the 
biography  of  Jonas  to  the  0i0kovi   'E/^gatixatc  (see  above,  §.  33.)  and 
concludes  the  second  section  with  the  words :  «r/g|»AS-cv  «r«    t»v  yrt^i 
aUTOU    hiynffii^    ui     tV^ov    aVAyiygctfJtfxivuv. 
(y)  Antiq.,  1.  ix.  c.  II.  §.  3.  Hav.  pp.  501.  502.  [Hud.  pp.  422.  423.  ] 
(s)  Antiq.,  I  XI.  c.  4.  $.  5.  Hav.  p.  557.  [  Hud.  p.  479.  ] 
(a)  Antiq.,  lib.  v.  c.  1.  $.  17.  Hav.  p.  273.  [  Hud.  p.  185.  ].    "O-ri  ^t 

y.ovTAi    S'lx.    Tav    di'veiKti/uivwv    h    tw"    Ue^a    y^tt-fAfxitm.       \  That  the 


CANON  Oi'  THE  OLD  TEJiTAMENT,  §.  35.  36.  "39 

The  BOOKS  OP  Kings.  The  book,  in  which  the  history  of 
the  Prophet  Ehjah  is  recorded,  i,  e.  the  books  of  Kings,  he 
ranks  with  that  which  gives  the  account  of  Enoch,  i.  e.  the 
first  book  of  Moses;  he  calls  both  is^ai  ^I'^Xoj  [Sacred 
Books  ].  (6) 

Psalms.  They  are  expressly  named  in  the  cited  passage 
(§.  29.)  under  the  title:  uM-voi  sis  tov  0£ov  [Psalms  to  God]; 
and  Josephus  makes  mention  of  them  elsewhere  by  the  names, 
Psalms  of  David,  because  David  was  the  principal  author  of 
them,  (f) 


.Second  Class.     Books,  which  Josephus  merely  cites,  without 
addition,  or  of  which  he  makes  a  mere  literary  rise. 


§.36. 

Lamentations,  Judges,  Ruth,  the  books  of  Samuel, 
Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther. 

The  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah,  which  in  his  opinion 
were  composed  on  the  death  of  king  Josiah,  Josephus  refers 
to,  as  a  compostion  still  extant  {d).  comp.  §.  33.  Obs.  5. 


length  of  the  day  increased  at  that  time,  aud  surpassed  what  was  usual, 
is  evident  from  the  writings  rcposited  in  the  temple.        Tr.  ] 

(6)  Antiq.,  lib.  IX.  c.  2.  §.  2.  Hav.  p.  475.  |;  Hud.  p.  396.  ].    Hsgi 
fxhrocyi    *H\f«     k%\   ^Evd^ov   tcu    ytvo/xivou    rgo    «r»c    ivofji.0gi*.(  «v  rxls 

itgais    ayAyiygATTTAt    0i$\oti}    Sti    ytyiycta-iv    df*v«<?    d-oLfarov    (T'ctWav 

oucTf/c    otJ'tv. 

(c)  Antiq.y  lib.  vii.  c.  12.  §.3.  [  o  iixvUnc weTxc    tl:    tov  Qtov 

Kxi    vfjtvov;    c'JViTai^Aro.     David  composed  odes  to   God  and  psalms. 
Tr.-] 

(d)  ArUiq.,  lib.  x.  c.  5.  $.  l.Hav.  p.  520.  [Hud.  p.  441.  ].   Iig^wc 
J'    h    7:go^;iT«j     iTTiK'iS'iiov     dvrou    auvhA^s     fxiMi    9-gj»vjfT/>cor,     o     kaI 

(jAxi^i    vyy    itafAini-     [Jeremiah  the  Prophet  composed  his  elegy,  a 
mournful  poem,  which  is  extant  even  at  the  present  time.     Tr."] 


80  CANON  or  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  36. 

Judges  and  Ruth.  Both  contain  very  ancient  events,  and 
must  have  been  vi^ritten  long  before  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  ; 
both  were  not  only  known  to  Josephus,  but  much  used  in  the 
fifth  book  of  his  Antiqq.  comp.  §.  33.  Obs.  5.  6. 

The  TWO  BOOKS  op  Samuel  were  extant  in  their  present 
form,  long  before  Artaxerxes ;  we  even  find  them  extracted 
by  Josephus,  often  word  for  word,  from  the  fifth  to  the  seventh 
book  of  his  Antiqq.  (e)  comp.  §.  33.  Obs.  5.  6. 

The  TWO  BOOKS  of  Chronicles  were  used  by  Josephus 
in  his  Antiqq.,  from  the  seventh  to  the  tenth  books  ;  but  the 
second  is  more  freely  used  than  the  Jirst,  because  it  contri- 
butes more  to  the  Hebrew  History.  (/) 

Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  According  to  Josephus,  the  con- 
tents of  these  books  belong  to  the  times  of  King  Xerxes  {g) : 
and  as  the  Canon  was  first  closed  under  his  successor  Artax- 
erxes ;  both  may  safely  be  placed  in  his  Canon.  He  makes 
free  use  of  both,  {h) 

Finally  Esther  was  undoubtedly  a  part  of  his  Canon.  For 
he  places  the  contents  of  the  book  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus,  and  closes  the  Canon  with  his  reign,  because 
this  book  was  the  latest  that  he  found  in  the  collection  of  the 
sacred  books  of  his  nation.  (§.  30.)  He  designates  the  very 
contents  of  the  book,  (i) 

These  are  the  writings  of  the  Second  Class.     Should  one 


(fi)  Thus  the  lamentation  on  the  death  of  Saul  andjonathan,  2  Sara- 
I.  Antiqq.,  vii.  c.  1.  $.  1.  4 

(/)  Antiqq.,  lib.  viii.  c.  12.  ^.  4.  Hav.  p.  453.  [  Hud.  p.  375.  ]  comp. 
2  Chr.  xiv.  8.  Antiqq.,  1.  viii.  c.  15.  §.  1.  2.  Hav.  p.  466.  [  Hud.  387.  J 
comp.  2  Chr.  xvii.  7,  Lc. 

(g)  Antiqq.,  lib.  xi.  c.  5.  $.  8.  Hav.  p.  566.  [  Hud.  p.  488.  ]  Josephus 
makes  mention  of  Nehemiah,  and  concludes  with  the  words:  TaSnt 
/u.»  euv  ini  Si^^ov  ^cta-iKim  lyhiro. — lib.  xi-  c.  5.  §.  1.  2.  Hav.  p.  560. 
[Hud.  p.  481. ]  "EcrtTgctf  .  .  .  ^tv6Ta«  <^ihoi  t»  ^olciku  Seg^ji.  And 
upon  this  follows  a  writing  of  Xerxes  to  Ezra. 

{h)  Particularly  Aniiq.,  lib.  xi— Yet  he  introduces  also  something 
from  the  third  book  of  Ezra.     See  Ant,,  1.  xi.  c.  3. 

(i)  Antiqq.,  lib.  xi,  c.  6 


CAiVON  OP  T HJi  OLD  TESTAMENT,  ^.  36.  37.  38.  §1 

<j{  them  be  rejected  from  the  Canon  of  Josephus,  then,  as  the 
same  reasonings  argue  for  all,  all  the  rest  must  forfeit  their 
places  in  it — and  what  will  then  be  the  condition  of  the  thir- 
teen prophetical  books  ? 


Third  Class,     Books,  which  Josephus  passes  over 
in  silence. 

§.  37. 
Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  the  Song  of  Solomon,  Job. 

Josephus  speaks  of  Solomon,  the  writer,  but  merely  iu 
general  expressions  (k) ;  he  cites  neither  the  Proverbs,  nor 
Ecclesiastes,  nor  the  Song  of  Solomon,  by  name. 

Even  of  the  book  of  Job  he  takes  as  little  notice,  as  he  does 
of  the  hero  of  it. 


§.  38. 
Some  Remarks. 

~^'  According  to  these  observations,  therefore,  Joshua,  Judges, 
KuTH,  the  two  books  of  Samuel,  the  two  of  Kings,  and  the  two 
of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
with  his  prophecies  and  his  lamentations,  Ezekiel,  Daniel, 
and  the  xii  minor  prophets,  it  is  certain,  belonged  to  the  Canon 
of  Josephus  ;  all  these  books  must  be  placed  in  the  Second 
Class,  among  the  thirteen  prophetical.  For  they  are  partly 
prophecies,  partly  historical  books  ;  and  the  latter,  like  the 
former,  are  considered  by  Josephus  and  by  other  writers  of 
his  time  and  after  him,  works  of  the  Prophets  (/),  in  part, 


(k)  Antiq.,  lib.  vm.  c.2.  §.  5.  Hav.  p.  419.  [  Hud.  p.  339.] 

(0  Philo,  as  quoted  abt)ve,  $.  17  ;  Theodoret  in  Praef.  a4  litres 

11 


83         CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  38. 

because  some  prophets  did  actually  record  the  history  of  their 
time,  and  in  part  because  5«'33  was  then*  sometimes  the 
titleof  a  wnfer.  in  general.  Let  us  reckon  then  as  we  may, 
there  is  still  no  doubt,  that  Josephus  placed  even  Job  in  the 
Class  of  Prophetical  Books,  in  case  Job  was  a  part  of  his 
Canon. 

No  one  has  yet  indulged  a  doubt,  that  at  the  time  of  Christ 
and  the  Apostles,  Job  may  have  had  a  place  in  the  collection 
of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews  :  Philo  and  the  authors  of 
the  New  Testament  knew  the  book  ;  it  was  certainly  extant 
long,  long  before  the  establishment  of  the  Canon ;  and  al- 
though Josephus  makes  mention,  neither  of  it  nor  of  its  hero, 
it  by  no  means  follows,  that  he  may  not  have  found  it  in  his 
collection  of  the  national  books.  Would  he  necessarily  speak 
of  it,  when  probably,  according  to  the  common  opinion  in 
ancient  times,  he  regarded  the  hero  of  the  book  as  a  foreigner, 
an  Arabian ;  and  could  he  not  write  a  complete  Hebrew  his- 
tory, without  uttering  even  a  syllable  in  regard  to  it  ?  And 
if  Josephus  knew  it,  and  found  it  among  the  sacred  books 
of  his  nation ;  he  most  probably  placed  it  in  his  Second 
Class,  among  the  thirteen  prophetical  books.  For  in  the 
Second  Class  he  placed  all  historical  books  ;  and  to  these 
belonged  Job,  because  all  antiquity  held  the  contents  of  it  ta 
be  a  true  narrative  set  forth  in  poetry. 


JRegum ;  Eusebius  in  his  praeparatio  evaiig. ;  aud  Abarbanel  pratf.  in 
Josuam. 

*  [  When  the  Treatise  originally  appeared,  the  author's  words  were  : 
^X''DJ   ''offt   der  Titel  eines  Schrifftsleller  Uberhaupt  ist,"   is   often 

the  title  of  a  writer  in  general.  He  here  says: — it  was  "damals  zu- 
weilen,"  then  sometimes.  But  it  is  not  easy  to  discover  proofs  even  ol 
this.    See  the  references  above,  p.  30.  note  *.       Tr.  ] 


i:anon  op  the  old  testament,  §.  39.  40. 


83 


§.  39. 


Result  of  the  preceding  Investigations, 

Without  any  risk  of  error,  we  may  then,  with  Origen,  ar- 
range the  thirteen  prophetical  books  of  the  Second  Class  in 
the  following  manner. 


1.  Joshua. 

2.  Judges  and  Ruth. 

3.  TWO  BOOKS  OP  Samuel. 

4.  two  books  of  Kings. 

5.  two  books  of  Chronicles. 

6.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

7.  Esther. 


8.  Isaiah. 

9.  Jeremiah's  prophecies 
and  lamentations. 

10.  Ezekiel. 

11.  Daniel. 

12.  XII  MINOR  prophets. 

13.  Job. 


The  four  books  of  the  last  Class,  which  are  on  moral  sub- 
jects, cannot  now  be  at  all  mistaken,  although  Josephus  ex- 
pressly mentions  merely  the  Psalms  ;  for  there  are  only  four 
b©oks  left  to  be  arranged. 


1.  Psalms- 

2.  Proverbs. 


3.  Ecclesiastes. 

4.  the  Song  of  Solomon. 


^.  40. 
3.  Me  LI  to.     Flourished  Cent.  ii. 


The  next  writer  after  Josephus,  who  affords  us  accounts  of 
the  Canon  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine,  is  Melito,  Bishop  of 
Sardis,  in  the  second  century  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  He 
travelled  into  the  East,  with  a  view  to  ascertain,  from  the  ac- 
counts of  the  Jews  there,  the  contents  and  the  number  of  their 
sacred  books ;  and  he  communicated  to  his  brother,  Onesi- 


^  CAKON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,    §.40. 

mus,  the  result  of  his  investigations,  in  a  letter  which  Euse 
Bius  has  preserved  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History.  Euseb. 
B.  IV.  c.  26. 

<i<X0Mbv\  TY\  cr^oj  Tov  XoYov  p^Wfjt-evog  y2\ic^a.i  doi  gxXoyaj,  ex  <rs  tou 
vofwu  xai  <rwv  ^^oqjvjTwv  cr?^<  «roi>  tfwTi^^off  xa«  tfaCiig  ^^jg  flrfeswg 
•Jjixwv.  STI  ^^  xa»  iuahsTv  t'/jv  twv  craXaiwv  /3»^Xiwv  £/3ouX»j^7)5  ^'*^''' 
(Bsiav,  flfoo'a  <rciv  d^j^/xov  xaj  o-rora  Tr^v  ca^iv  s<ev,  ^tf-ffou^otfa  to 
toioUto  cf^o^aj,  sflri^afi/gvog  tfou  to  tftfou^arov  irs^/  tt^v  •n'fejv,  xai  (p»Xo- 
/xa&sj  'n'sfi  TOV  Xoyov..  ot»  t£  /xaXjra  "jravTwv  ^o^oj  tw  cr^og  0eov 
TttCTa  <r^ox^:v£iff,  «b'S^/  T^if  aiwv/ou  CwTi^^jag  dywv<<^o'(xsvo5'  dvsX^wv 
ouv  stg  T^v  dvaroXi^v,  xai  sw^  tou  tcVou  ysvo/xsvo^  Iv^a  sxtj^^i^j^^tj 
xal  ^cr^ap^^v],  xa/  dx^i^ug  (xaSrwv  to.  tS^j  ^oikaiois  5iaSr^x»]^  /3ij8X»a, 
i'?r'0Ta|af  bVs/x-vj/a  tfor  (Sv  £?<  Ttt  ovo/J^aTa*  MwiJC^wj  cTc'vtS'  Tsvs(fig, 
"E|o5og,  AsuiTjxov,  'A^jS^/xo/,  AeuTS^ovo'fAjov  'ItjCoC?  Nau^,  K^iTa/, 
*PouS:*  BaCjXsjwv  TsVCa^a,  na^aXst-Tro/Ji-c'vwv  5i;o.  YaXjxwv  Aa/3j^, 
SoXofAwvoj  na^oifJM'aj,  ^  xaj  2o(pia,  'ExxX-Kitfja^i^^,  aCfta  'ACjxaTwv, 
'IwjS.  n^o(piiTWv,  'HCatou,  'Is^gjxj'ou*  twv.  ^w^sxa  sv  fxovo/3»/3Xw. 
Aavii^X,  'l£^£x<7^X,  '^Eff^^ag-  l|  wv  xc.<  gxXoydj  I'ffojyjo'ajxyjv,  £i^  g^ 
/?ij8Xia  ^isXwv. 

"  Melito  to  his  brother  Onesimus  greeting.  Whereas> 
from  your  great  earnestness  for  the  Word,  you  have  often 
wished  to  have  selections  from  the  liaw  and  the  Prophets, 
which  relate  to  our  Saviour  and  our  w^hole  faith  ;  and  would 
be  glad  to  have  a  minute  account  of  the  ancient  books,  how 
many  of  them  there  are  in  number,  and  in  what  order  they 
stand :  I  have  endeavoured  to  effect  this,  because  I  was 
aware  of  your  earnestness  in  the  faith,  and  your  desire  for  in- 
struction in  respect  to  the  Word,  and  knew  that  in  your  long- 
ing after  eternal  happiness,  from  love  to  God,  you  prefer  it  to 
all  other  things.  As  I  was  journeying  in  the  East,  therefore, 
and  came  to  the  place  where  this  was  preached  and  exhibited, 
I  accurately  ascertained  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
subjoin  a  catalogue  of  them,  and  send  it  to  you.  They  are 
called  as  follows :  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deu- 
teronomy, Joshua.  Judges,  Ruth,  four  Books  of  Kings,  two 


CANON  aP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  40.  41.  8'5 

Books  of  Chronicles,  the  Psalms  of  David,  the  Proverbs  of 
Solomon,  w^hich  is  entitled  also  the  Wisdom  (m),  Ecclesiastes, 
the  Song  of  Songs,  Job.  The  Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  the 
twelve  in  one  book  ;  Daniel,  Ezekiel,  and  Ezra.  From  these 
I  have  made  the  Selections,  and  divided  them  into  six  books.'" 


§.  41. 

Illustration  of  this  Passage. 

It  is  true  that  in  this  Catalogue  Nehemiaii  and  Esther  are 
not  mentioned  ;  but,  whoever  reads  the  passage  and  under- 
stands it,  will  here  discover  both  of  them.  Melito  here  ar- 
ranges the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  manifestly  according 
to  the  time  in  which  they  were  written,  or  in  which  the  facts 
which  they  record  occurred.  Hence  he  places  Ruth  after  the 
book  pf  Judges,  Daniel  and  Ezekiel  toward  the  end  of  his 
Catalogue,  and  Ezra  last  of  all,  because  he  wrote  after  the 
Babylonian  captivity.  And  accordingly,  as  he  comprehended 
the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  under  the  general  appellation 
Books  of  Kings,  because  they  related  the  history  of  the  He- 
brew kingdom  from  Saul  to  Zedekiah,  or  until  the  Babylonian 
captivity :  in  the  same  manner,  he  appears  to  comprise  under 
the  name  of  Ezra  all  historical  books,  the  subjects  of  which 
occur  in  the  times  subsequent  to  the  Babylonian  captivity.  As 
it  is  very  common  to  include  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  one  book^ 


(m)  According  to  Stroth's  translation  of  this  passage;  it  is  only 
here  departed  froin,  because  probably  neither  »»  Kai  a-o<j>ia,  nor  >)  o-d^ia 
is  the  true  reading,  but,  according  to  Stroth's  conjecture,  »  koi  iro<piot. 
Melito,  and  from  him  Eusebius,  wrote  without  any  accents  or  spiritus 
»  KAt  copm.  For  even  Nicephorus  admitted  Kni,  and  Ruffin  trans- 
lated :  quae  el  sapienlia.  Afterward,  when  accents  were  added,  from  » 
arose  the  postpositive  »  Kal  co^ia.  But  ij  cannot  refer  to  0i0\ia,  which 
goes  before ;  so  «*/  was  omitted,  and  ^  aofU  was  written,  which  even 
now  occurs  in  some  editions,  as  might  indeed  have  easily  happened 
with  P   Ktl  <roft*. 


86        CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  4L  42. 

why  might  not  even  Ezra,  Nehemiah  and  Esther  also  have 
been  regarded  as  a  whole  ?  If  we  add  to  this  conjecture, 
that  Nehemiah  and  Esther,  according  to  Josephus  (§.  36.), 
must  have  been  parts  of  the  Canon,  and  that  Fathers  of  au- 
thority, such  as  Origen  (§.  42.)  and  Jerome  (§.  44.),  expressly 
enumerate  both  in  it ;  no  impartial  inquirer  can  well  doubt, 
that  even  Melito  does  not  reject  from  the  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  the  two  books  mentioned,  (n) 


§.  42. 
Origen.     Born  A.  D.  185.     Died  A.  D.  253. 

The  next  Father,  whom  we  must  hear,  is  Origen,  whose 
catalogue  of  the  Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 
has  been  preserved  by  Eusebius.  Eccl.  Hist.  vi.  25.  It  is 
of  very  great  weight,  because  it  is  derived  from  the  Jews,  as 
Origen  himself,  in  the  very  beginning  of  it,  expressly  states. 

Tov  jtjLsv  Tojys  ^^wTov  B^t\yo\}[iZMos  vj^aXixov,  g'xSeo'iv  ors'ji'oiTjrai 
( 'n^jy£V»]g )  Tou  Twv  i5^w»  y^a(pwv  t%  'makmag  5»a^*jx»)g  xaTaXoyou, 
^U  flfwg  ygoKpwv  xara  X^|iv*  oux  dyvorjT^ov  5'i/vai  Tag  ^v5iaS»)xou? 
/3(/3Xouf,  d)5  'EjS^aroi  cr'a^a^iSoafl'iv,  dua  xai  s'/xotfi*  otfog  6  d^i'^ft.QS 
<rwv  leaf  auTor?  goixsiwv  ktv  £«<ra  (xsm  cjva,  iieicpi^si  T^syuv  h(fi, 
6s    ai  s'/xotfi  dvo  /3i/3Xoi    xa^'    'E/3^aioug    a5'5s*  yj  •n'a^'  'Jjfjiwv  revstfi? 

/S^tfj^,    oVfi^    £^/v     ^l>     OL^ji'     "'E^O^OJ:,    OUaXSO'fAW^,     oVs^    ^^<    TttUTtt    TO. 

ovoftara*  Asumxov,    ouix^a,    xa/    ^xaXgrfsv     'A^i^/xoi    «-f«,(XeO'(pexoj5s<jui.* 
AsuTS^ovojXJOv,    tXXs    a6ds(3afii^,    outoi  e»    Xoyor    'iTjtfoug   ulog  Nau5), 


(n)  ScHMiD,  hist,  et  vindic.  Canonis,  assumes  with  others,  that  Es- 
ther, removed  by  the  error  of  a  transcriber,  was  originally  mentioned 
by  Melito.  I  doubt  this  however,  as  there  is  to  be  found  no  trace  of  it; 
and  Athanasiiis,  Gregory  Naz.,  and  others,  who  follow  Melito,  in  like 
manner  omit  Esther.  See  Schmid  1.  c.  p.  171.  173.  193.  Bkuns  in  his 
edit,  of  KennicoWs  diss,  gener.  p.  178,  is  of  my  opinion. 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  4*2,  87 

Xs»wv  flT^wri},  Ssvri^cCj  -ra^'  airoTg  ev  Hafxou'iiX,  o  ^eoxXyj^og*  /3atf<- 
Xs<5v  r^kri^  rera^Tyj,  ^v  lv<,  ouafi-fAsXe;^  Aa8i8,  oife^  ki  /SatfiXs/a 
^a(3id,  na^aXfiffofAivajv  •tt'^wttj,  Sevrs^Uf  iv  hvi,  dilS^ri  aiajxj'j*,  oVsp 
aV<  Xo'yoi  »3(XE^ojv  '^Etf^^aj  <ff^uTQS  xai  ^suts^oj  ^v  Iv/,  ^(^^a,  o  ^g# 
^oYi^dg-  /3ij8Xoff  'i'aXfi.GJv  o's'ipe^  ^iXXi'fx.  2oXo|xwvtoj  <a^oi|xiai  /wioXw^, 
'ExxXirjtfjasi^j,  xwe'Xs^'  aCfJt'tt  aVfAarwv,  tfi^  aCtfi^ifx.  'Htfaiaj,  'letfaVa. 
'Ig^fAia^  tfOv  ^^-^voij  xai  <r^  ^"tti^oXi]  ^v  Iv/,  'I^S/xia,  AaviigX,  Aavt^X. 
'le^sxji^X,  'Igg|xrjX.  'ItfjS,  Iw/3.  'Etf^ii^,  EtfSrrj^,  l|w  6s  toutwv  ^gi  w 
MaxxaySaixot,  a^s^  intxyiy^cLitTai  ^ol^^vi^  tfa^/3avs  g'X. 

In  the  exposition  of  the  first  Psalm,  he  (Origen)  exhibits 
a  catalogue  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  where 
he  writes  as  follows :  "  It  must  be  known,  that  the  canoni- 
cal books,  as  the  Hebrews  relate,  are  twenty-two  in  number, 
according  to  the  number  of  their  letters."  Somewhat  further 
on,  he  proceeds  :  "  these  twenty-two  books,  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  are  the  following  :  the  Book  which  with  us  bears  the 
title  Genesis,  is  called  by  the  Hebrews,  from  the  beginning  of 
the  Book,  *  Breshith,'  that  is  :  'in  the  beginning/  Exodus 
*  Velleshemoth,'  that  is  :  *  these  are  the  names.'  Leviticus 
*Vayikra,  and  he  called.'  Numbers,  *  Hammishpekodim.' 
Deuetoronomy  *  Ellehaddebarim,  these  are  the  words.'  Jesus 
the  Son  of  Nave,  '  Joshua  Ben  Nun.'  The  Judges,  Ruth, 
in  one  Book  with  thena,  '  Shophetim.'  (o)  The  first  and  se- 
cond of  Kings,  one,  'Samuel,'  that  is:  'the  called  of  God.' 
The  third  and  fourth  of  Kings,  in  one,  '  Vammelech  David,' 
that  is:  '  and  King  David.'  The  first  and  second  of  Chro- 
nicles, in  one,  '  Dibre  Hayamim,'  that  is  :  '  Journals.'  The 
first  and  second  of  Ezra,  in  one,  (p)  '  Ezra,'  that  is  :  'the 


(o)  A  trace  of  it  is  found  in  the  Masora  Jinalis  of  a  Spanish  MS. 
(Kennicott's  num.  3.),  where  Ruth  is  called  D^^at^n  l^Qu  "13?.  from 

the  beginning  of  the  Book.     See  Bruns,  ad  Kennicolti  diss,  gen.,  pp.  18, 
19.  nota. 

(p)  Proofs  of  this  are  also  found  in  the  modern  Hebrew  MSS.  Many 
still  write,  the  two  books  of  Samuel,  the  two  of  Kings,  the  two  of  Chro- 
nicles, as  Ezra  and  Nehemiab,  in  one,  continuously,  without  an  inter- 
%"ening  space  ;  and  hence,  all  these  books  in  the  most  ancieht  editions, 


SS  CANON  OF  THK  OLD  TESTAMfiiNT,  §.  42.  43. 

helper.'  The  Book  of  Psalms,  *  Sepher  Thillim/  The  Pro« 
VERBS  of  Solomon,  *  Mishloth.'  Ecclesiastes,  *  Koheleth/ 
The  Song  op  Songs,  *  Shir  Hashirim/  Isaiah,  '  lesayah.' 
Jeremiah,  with  the  Lamentations  and  the  Epistle,  in  one 
Book,  *  Yirmeyah.'  Daniel,  *  Daniel.'  Ezekiel,  *  Yehezkeel.' 
Job,  *  Job/  Esther,  '  Esther.'  Beside  these,  there  are  also 
the  Books  of  Maccabeess,  which  are  entitled :  Sarbeth  Sar- 
bane  EI."  (y) 


§.  43. 

Illustralion  of  this  passage, 

.  In  this  Catalogue  of  the  Canonical  Writings  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  xii  minor  Prophets  are  wanting;  notwith- 
standing Baruch  holds  a  place  in  it.  The  first  difficulty 
vanishes,  on  a  comparison  of  Ruffin's  Latin  translation,  and 
Hilary's  Preface  to  the  Psalms.  The  former ,  in  the  passage 
cited  from  Eusebius,  has  the  twelve  minor  Prophets  after  the 
Song  of  Solomon ;  and  the  latter,  (who,  according  to  an  ob- 
sei-vation  already  made  by  Jerome,  has  derived  his  Preface 
to  the  Psalms  in  great  part  from  this  passage),  mentions  the 
twelve  minor  Prophets  among  the  Canonical  Writings  of  the 
Old  Testament,  (r)     The  other  difficulty  is  not  so  easy  to  re- 


whicli  follow  as  closely  as  possible  the  arrangement  of  the  MSS.,were 
thus  printed  in  one,  until  Daniel  Bomberg  introduced  the  present 
usual  division  of  them.  [  See  Eichh.  Introd.  to  the  O.  T.,  Vol.  n. 
§.  359.        Tr.  -j 

(q)  According  to  Stroth's  Translation. 

(r)  Here  is  Valesius'  note  on  the  passage:  Omissus  est  in  hoc  Cata- 
logo  liber  duodecim  Prophetarum.  Quo  factum  est,  ut  cum  viginti 
duos  libros  se  numeraturum  promiserit  Origenes,  unus  duntaxat  et 
viginti  reperiantur.  In  Rufini  versione  recensetur  hie  liber  statim  post 
Canticum  canticorura.  Nee  aliter  Hilarius  in  prologo  enarrationis  in 
Psalmos,  et  Cyrillus  Hierosolymitanus.  Ceterum  sacrae  Scripturae  libri 
?onge  alio  ordine  hie  recensentur,  quam  Epiphanio,  et  Hieronyrao  f  * 


OANON  OF  THE  OLD  T£STAM£^'T,  §.  43.  44.  89 

solve.  Nowhere  is  there  a  trace,  that  Jeremiah's  Epistle 
ever  was  a  part  of  the  Jewish  Canon.  Origen  was  mistaken, 
and  perhaps  he  had  before  him  a  copy  of  the  Septuagint,  (in 
which,  as  usual,  Baruch  was  placed  immediately  after  Jere- 
miali,)  and  he  suffered  liimself  to  be  betrayed  by  this  into 
his  mistake,  (s) 


§.  44. 

Jerome.    A.  Z>.  422. 

Jerome  reckons,  according  to  the  number  of  the  conso- 
nants in  the  Hebrew  Alphabet,  twenty-two  books,  and  in  his 
Prologus  Galeatus  arranges  them  in  the  following  order, 
which  the  Bibliotheca  Divina  also  follows : — 

1 5.    FIVE  BOOKS  OF  MoSES.  8.    TWO  BOOKS  OF  SaMUEL, 

6.  Joshua.  9.  two  books  of  Kings. 

7.  Judges  and  Ruth.  10.  Isaiah. 


Melitone,  cujus  locum  supra  retulit  Eusebius  in  fine  lib.  4.  Hilarius 
vero  in  prologo  Commentariorum  in  Psalmos,  cum  Origene  prorsus 
consentiL  Nee  Id  mirum,  cum  totus  fere  prologus  ille  Hilarii  translatus 
sit  ex  Commentariis  in  Psalmos,  ut  testatur  Hieronymus. 

(«)  This  is  yet  more  probable,  if  we  reflect,  that  the  Egyptian  Chris- 
tians, those  great  admirers  of  the  apocryphal  writings,  permitted  Ba- 
ruch to  follow  the  Lamentations.  [  The  Ethiopians  divided  the  Old 
Testament  into  four  parts. 

I.  The  OcTATECCH,  including  the  five  books  of  Moses,  Joshusi, 
Judges,  Ruth. 

II.  The  Kings,  in  thirteen  books:  two  books  of  Samuel,  two  of 
Kings,  two  of  Chronicles,  two  of  Ezra,  (Ezra  and  Nehemiah),  Tobit, 
Judith,  Esther,  Job,  Psalms. 

HI.  Solomon,  in  five  books :  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Solos- 

mon,  Wisdom  and  Sirach. 
IV,  The  Prophets,  in  eighteen  books :  Isaiah,  Jeremiah's  prophecies 

and  lamentations,  Baruch,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  the  twelve  minor 

Prophets. 
They  had  also  two  books  of  Maccabees.    Sec  Eichhorn's  Introd.  io 
the  0.  T.,  Vol.  n.  §.  309.  note  g.      Tr.  ] 

12 


90         CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  44, 

11.  Jebemiah's  prophecies   18.  Song  of  Songs. 

AND  LAMENTATIONS.  19.    DaNIEL. 

12.  EZEKIEL.  20.    TWO   BOOKS   OF    CbBU 

13.  XII  MINOR  Prophets.  nicles. 

14.  Job.  21.  Ezra  in  two  books,  i,  e. 

15.  Psalms.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 

16.  Proverbs.  22.  Esther. 

17.  ECCLBSIASTES. 

Viginti  et  duas  litteras  (  says  he  in  the  Prologus  Galeatus ) 
esse  apud  Hebraeos,  Syrorum  quoque  hngua  et  Chaldaeorum 
testatur,  quae  hebraeae  magna  ex  parte  confinis  est.      Nam 
et  ipsi  viginti  duo  elementa  habent,  eodem  sono  et  diversis 
characteribus. ......  Porro  quinque  Htterae  duplices  apud 

Hebraeos  sunt,  Caph,  Mem,  Nun,  Pe,  Sade.  Unde  et  quin- 
que a  plerisque  hbri  duplices  existimantur,  Samuel,  Melachim, 
Dibre  hajamim,  Esdras,  Jeremias  cum  Cinoth,  id  est  lamenta- 
tionibus  suis.  Quomodo  igitur  viginti  duo  elementa  sunt,  per 
quae  scribimus  hebraeice  omne  quod  loquimur,  et  eorum 
initiis  vox  humana  comprehenditur :  ita  viginti  duo  volumina 
supputantur,  quibus  quasi  litteris  et  exordiis  in  Dei  doctrina, 
tenera  adhuc  et  lactens  viri  justi  eruditur  infantia. 

Primus  apud  eos  liber  vocatur  Beresith,  quem  nos  Genesin 
dicimus.  Secundus  Veelle  Semoth.  Tertius  Vajicra,  id  est, 
Leviticus.  Quartus  Vajedabber,  quem  Numeros  vocamus. 
Quintus  Elle  haddebarim,  qui  Deuteronomium  praenotatur. 
Hi  sunt  quinque  Hbri  Mosis,  quos  proprie  Thora,  id  est 
Legem,  appellant. 

Secundum  Prophetarum  ordinem  faciunt,  et  incipiunt  ab 
Jesu  filio  Nave,  qui  apud  eos  Josue  Ben  JVwn  dicitur.  Deinde 
subtexunt  Sophetim,  id  est  Judicum  librum :  et  in  eundem 
compingunt  Ruth,  quia  in  diebus  Judicum  facta  ejus  narratur 
historia.  Tertius  sequitur  Samuel,  quem  nos  Regum  primum 
et  secundum  dicimus.  Quartus  Melachim,  id  est  Regum,  qui 
tertio  et  quarto  Regum  volumine  continetur.  Meliusque 
multo  est  Melachim,  id  est  Regum,  quam  Melachoth,  id  est 
Regnorum  dicere:   Non  enim  multarum  gentium  describit 


oANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  44.         91 

regna,  sed  unius  Israelitici  populi,  qui  tribubus  duodecim 
continetur.  Quintus  est  Esaias.  Sextus  Jeremias,  Septimus 
Ezechiel.  Octavus  liber  duodecim  Prophetarum,  qui  apud 
illos  vocatur  Tliereasar. 

Tertius  ordo  Hagiographa  possidet,  Et  primus  liber 
incipit  a  Job.  Secundus  a  David,  quern  quinque  incisionibus 
et  uno  Psatmorum  volumine  comprehendunt.  Tertius  est 
Salomon,  tres  libros  habens,  Proverbia,  quae  illi  Misle,  id  est 
Parabolas,  appellant.  Quartus  Ecclesiastes,  id  est  Coheletk. 
Quintus  Canticum  Canticorum,  quem  titulo  Sir  hassirim 
praenotant.  Sextus  est  Daniel,  Septimus  Dihre  hajammim  id 
est  Verba  dierum,  quod  significantius  chronicon  totius  divinae 
historiae  possumus  appellare,  qui  liber  apud  nos  Paralipomenon 
primus  et  secundus  inscribitur.  Octavus  Esdras  :  qui  et  ipse 
similiter  apud  Graecos  et  Latinos  in  duos  libros  divisus  est. 
Nonus  Esther. 

Atque  ita  fiunt  pariter  Veteris  Legis  libri  viginti  duo,  id  est, 
Mosis  quinque,  et  Prophetarum  octo,  Hagiographorum  novem. 

Quanquam  nonnulli  Ruth  et  Cinoih  inter  Hagiographa 
scriptitent,  et  hos  libros  in  suo  putent  numero  supputandos,  ac 
per  hoc  esse  priscae  Legis  libros  viginti  quatuor 

Hie  prologus  scripturarum  quasi  galeatum  principium 
omnibus  libris,  quos  de  Hebraeo  vertimus  in  Latinum,  con- 
venire  potest :  ut  scire  valeamus,  quicquid  extra  hos  est,  inter 
apocrypha  esse  ponendum.  Igitur  Sapientia,  quae  vulgo 
Salomonis  inscribitur,  et  Jesu  Jilii  Sirach  liber,  et  Judith  et 
Tobias  et  Pastor  non  sunt  in  Canone.  Machabaeorum  primum 
librum  hebraicum  reperi.  Secundus  graecus  est,  quod  ex 
ipsa  quoque  phrasi  probari  potest. 

[  That  the  Hebrews  had  twenty-two  books,  is  evinced  by 
the  language  of  the  Syrians  and  Chaldeans,  which  is  in  the 
main  nearly  allied  to  the  Hebrew.  For  they  also  have 
twenty-two  elements,  with  the  same  sound,  but  different 
characters.  .  .  .  Moreover,  the  Hebrews  have  five  double  let- 
ters :  Caph,  Mem,  Nun,  Pe,  Sade.  Hence  five  books  also  are 
by  many  considered  double :  Samuel,  Melachim,  Dibre  haja- 
mim,  Esdras,  Jeremias  with  Cinoth,  that  is  his  lamentations. 
As  there  are  therefore  twenty-two  elements,  by  means  of 


92  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,   §.  44. 

which  we  write  in  Hebrew  all  that  we  speak,  and  the  human 
voice  is  comprehended  in  their  principles  ;  so  twenty-iwo  books 
are  reckoned,  by  which,  as  if  by  letters  and  rudiments,  the 
yet  tender  and  nursing  infancy  of  the  righteous  man  is  in- 
structed in  the  knowledge  of  God. 

The  first  book  is  named  Beresith,  which  we  call  Genesis. 
The  second,  Veelle  Semoth.  The  third,  Fajicra^  that  is,  Levi- 
ticus. The  fourth,  Vajedabber,  which  we  call  Numbers.  The 
fifth.  Elk  haddebarim,  which  is  denoted  Deuteronomy.  These 
are  the  five  books  of  Moses,  which  they  call  properly  Thoray 
that  is,  the  Law. 

They  make  a  Second  Class  of  the  Prophets,  and  begin 
with  Jesus  the  son  of  Nave,  whom  they  call  Josue  Ben  Kun, 
They  then  subjoin  .Sophetim,  that  is  the  book  of  Judges  ;  and 
attach  to  it  Ruth,  because  history  describes  its  events  in  the 
days  of  the  Judges.  In  the  third  place  follows  Samuel,  which 
we  call  the  first  and  second  of  Kings.  Fourth,  Melachim,  that 
is  Kings,  which  is  comprised  in  the  third  and  fourth  book  of 
Kings.  It  is  much  better  to  say  Melachim,  that  is  Kings, 
than  Melachoth,  that  is  Kingdoms.  For  it  does  not  treat  of 
the  kingdoms  of  many  nations,  but  of  the  people  of  Israel 
only,  consisting  of  twelve  tribes.  The  fifth  is  Isaiah.  The 
sixth  Jeremiah.  The  seventh,  Ezekiel.  The  eighth,  the  book 
of  the  twelve  prophets,  which  they  call  Thereasar. 

The  Third  Class  contains  the  Hagiographa.  And  the  first 
book  begins  with  Job.  The  second  with  David,  which  they 
comprise  in  five  sections  and  one  book  of  Psalms.  The  third 
is  Solomon,  who  has  three  books.  Proverbs,  which  they  call 
Misle,  that  is  Parables.  The  fourth,  Ecclesiastes,  that  is, 
Cohdeth.  The  fifth,  the  Song  of  Songs,  which  they  denote 
by  the  title  Sir  hassirim.  The  sixth  is  Daniel ;  the  seventh, 
Dibre  hajammim,  that  is  words  of  days,  which  we  may  signi- 
ficantly call  a  Chronicle  of  the  whole  sacred  history  :  we  en- 
title the  book,  first  and  second  Paralipomenon.  The  eighth, 
Ezra,  which  also  is  divided  into  two  books  both  by  the  Greeks 
and  Latins.     The  ninth,  Esther. 

And  in  this  manner  there  are  twenty^xuo  books  of  the  ancient 
law,  that  is,  five  of  Moses,  eight  of  the  Prophets,  nine  of  the 
Hagiographa. 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  44.  45.       93 

Although  some  often  mention  Ruth  and  Cinoth  among  the 
Hagiographa,  and  think  that  these  books  are  to  be  reckoned 
in  their  number,  and  that  thus  the  books  of  the  ancient  law 
are  hoenty-four 

This  Preface,  as  a  well  furnished  proem,  may 'be  applied  to 
all  the  books  which  we  translate  from  Hebrew  into  Latin : 
so  that  we  may  know,  every  one  but  these  is  to  be  placed 
among  the  Apocrypha.  Therefore  the  Wisdom,  which  is  com- 
monly entitled  of  Solomon,  and  the  book  of  Jesus  the  son  of 
Sirachf  and  Judith,  and  Tobic,  and  the  Shepherd  are  not  in  the 
Canon.  I  have  found  the  frst  book  of  Maccabees  in  Hebrew. 
The  second  is  Greek,  which  may  be  proved  from  the  very 
phraseology.       TV.  ] 

He  thus  divides  the  whole  collection  into  three  parts,  Law, 
Prophets,  and  Hagiographa:  and  reckons  eight  Prophets 
and  NINE  Hagiographa;  and  even  remarks,  that  some  enu- 
merated TWENTY-FOUR  Books,  and,  to  make  out  this  number, 
reckoned  separately  Ruth  and  Lamentations.  And  he  thus 
concludes,  that  all  writings  of  the  Jews,  except  those  men- 
tioned, were  to  be  placed  with  the  Apocrypha. 


§.  45. 

The  Talmud.     Cent,  ii — iv. 

The  Jews,  in  their  quibbling,  introduced  two  jods  into  the 
Hebrew  Alphabet,  that  it  might  consist  of  twenty -four  con- 
sonants. Hence  the  Talmud  reckons  twenty-four  canonical 
books,  in  the  following  order  (t)  : 

1—5.  The  FIVE  BOOKS  OF  Moses.    8.  two  books  of  Samuel. 

6.  Joshua.  9.  two  books  op  Kings. 

7.  Judges.  10.  Jeremiah. 


(t)  BuxTORFii  Tiberias,  cap.  xt. 


94  CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  4^. 

11.  EZEKIEL.  18.    ECCLESIASTES. 

12.  Isaiah.  19.  The  Song  of  Solomon. 

13.  XII  MINOR  Prophets.  20.  Lamentations. 

14.  Ruth.  21.  Daniel. 

15.  Psalms.  22.  Esther. 

16.  Job.  23.  Ezra  (  and  Nehemiah.  ) 

17.  Proverbs.  24.  Chronicles. 

The  principal  passage  is  found  in  the  treatise  Bava  Bath- 
ra  (m).  Having  divided  the  Books  of  Scripture  into 
1.  nnin  [the  Law],  2.  D^K^p^  [ th^ Prophets ],  and  3.  D^a^ns 
[  the  Hagiographa  ],  and  suggested  ih  regard  to  them  much 
that  is  not  here  in  place  ;  it  then  nam^s  the  books  of  each 
part  separately,  and  exhibits  those  of  the  two  latter  parts  in 
the  following  order ; 

bi^)t2ti/  D^coiDV^^i  j^trin^  o^no^  hu^  pno 

b^'^i  niypi  Dn^trn  Tt^  nSnp  ^StrDi 
D^Dsn  nnni  Nnrr  nnoN  nS^jXDi 

[  The  order  of  Prophets  is  Joshua  and  Judges,  Samuel 
and  Kings,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  Isaiah  and  the  twelve. 
. .  .  The  order  of  Hagiographa  is  Ruth  and  the  book  of 
Psalms,  and  Job  and  Proverbs,  the  Preacher,  the  Song  op 
Songs  and  Lamentations,  Daniel  and  the  roll  of  Esther, 
Ezra  and  Chronicles,       Tr.  ] 


(«)  Bava  Bathka,  fol.  13.  14.  ed.  Fenet.,  1548.  [  The  passage  cited 
from  the  Talmud  is  given,  as  quoted  by  Eichhorn  from  the  Venice 
edition ;  but  in  the  edition  of  Amsterdam  (an.  Jud.  405),  in  which  the 
words  occur  p.  14.  b.,  lines  26.  27.  34.  35.,  instead  of  the  Talmudick 
D'7D31,  (see  Buxtorf's  Lexicon  Chald.  Talmud.  Rabbin,  col.  323,  on 
the  root  SoD) ,  is  found  the  Hebrew  DoSdV     Tr.  ] 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  46.         95 


§.  46. 

Result:  history  declares  that  all  the  books  of  our  Hebrew 
editions  of  the  Bible  are  Canonical. 

From  the  accounts  thus  far  collected,  it  is  undeniable,  I 
think,  that  at  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  the  Canon  of 
the  Jews  corresponded  in  extent  with  our  present  editions  of 
the  Bible.  And  if,  before  their  time,  in  the  period  between  the 
end  of  the  Babylonian  captivity  and  the  birth  of  Christ,  it 
may  be  presumed  to  have  once  contained  fewer  books ;  we 
must  then  either  deny  the  truth  of  the  picture,  which  antiquity 
presents  to  us,  of  the  opinion  of  the  Jews  in  respect  to  their 
sacred  books,  or  maintain,  that  a  designed  and  in  all  parts  de- 
terminate collection  of  their  national  writings  never  was  pro- 
vided by  the  Jews.  The  former  is  without  any  foundation,  to 
contradict  to  the  face  the  most  credible  testimonies  of  anti- 
quity, and  the  latter  is  to  contend  against  all  self-evidence. 

From  the  remotest  period,  the  Jews  glowed  with  a  sacred 
reverence  for  their  national  writings.     In  the  language  of 
Josephus,  "  it  was,  so  to  speak,  innate  with  them,  to  regard 
these  as  divine  instructions  ;  in  their  solicitude  they  ventured 
not,  as  he  assures  us, — to  add^  or  to  take  away,  or  to  alter  any 
thmg,  although  some  of  the  writings  had  a  very  high  antiqui- 
ty*" (§•  29.)     Even  by  the  greatest  calamities,  which  the  mad 
spirit  of  persecution  gathered   around  them  on  account  of 
their  sacred  books,  they  did  not  permit  their  reverence  to  be 
repressed  (y).    How  could  a  nation,  with  these  sentiments, 
suffer  to  be  ranked  with  their  sacred  books,  such  as  were  of 
inferior  value  and  authority — in  case  it  had  been  made  out 
and  generally  decided,  how  many  and  what  books  were  enti- 
tled to  divine  authority  ? 
This  also  was  settled.    As  far  as  we  can  go  back  in  their 


{v}  Compare  Philo,  in  Eusebxus'  praepar.  evang.,  lib.  viii.  c,  6. 


96  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  §.  4ti. 

history,  just  there,  where  the  Apocrypha  unites  the  broken 
thread  of  Hebrew  Hterature,  we  find  express  mention  of  a 
sacred  national  hbrary  of  the  Hebrews,  as  the  several  parts 
of  it  were  strictly  determined.  It  thus  appears,  that  it  was 
begun  soon  after  the  Babylonian  captivity  ;  or  that,  from  the 
Writings,  which  in  regard  to  contents,  authors,  and  date  of 
composition  were  so  different,  there  was  made  a  complete 
whole,  with  a  view  that,  for  the  future,  no  new  writings 
should  be  added  to  them  ;*  although,  from  the  want  of  ac- 
counts, we  are  not  now  able  to  specify,  in  what  year,  and  why 
additions  at  that  period  ceased  to  be  made. 

In  short,  history  attests,  that  after  the  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity, AND  INDEED  SOON  AFTER  THE  NEW  ESTABLISHMENT  OF 
the  HEBREW  STATE  IN  PALESTINE,  THE  CANON  WAS  FULLY  SET- 
TLED,    AND     AT        THAT      TIME      COMPRISED     ALL     THOSE      BOOKS, 

WHICH  WE  NOW  FIND  IN  IT.  Aud  yct  Icarncd  men  of  modern 
•times  have  endeavoured  to  prove,  that  the  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  first  determined  in  very  recent  times  ;  that 
many  of  our  books,  regarded  as  canonical,  formerly  had  no 
place  in  the  Canon,  but  were  first  raised  to  this  distinction  by 
Christian  Fathers,  and  modern  Jews. 

In  this  the  favourite  System  was  in  fault.  Men  bad  spe- 
culated in  the  abstract,  on  the  characteristicks  of  a  Scriptu- 
ral Book,  and  without  any  materials  had  erected  a  building  in 
the  air.  Then,  innumerable  appearances  opposed  the  receiv- 
ed general  views  of  the  nature  of  a  Scriptural  Book.  With- 
out demolishing  the  former  building  itself,  and  without  taking 
pains  to  seek  for  the  materials  of  a  new  and  more  substan- 
tial structure,  they  merely  patched  up  the  old  castle  in  the 
air,  and  they  would  no  longer  tolerate  in  the  Canon  those 
books,  to  which  the  old  theory,  (consecrated  indeed  by  the 
prerogative  of  age,  but  otherwise  baseless,)  did  not  admit  of 
being  applied. 


*  [  The  author  here  refers  to  his  Introduction  to  the  O.  T.,  Vol.  i.  §.  6. 
which  treats  of  the  collection  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  after  the  Babylonian 
captivity.    Tt.  ] 


APPENDIX, 


Note  [A]. 

The  view  which  the  New  Testament  gives  of  the  particular 
books  belonging  to  the  Jewish  Canon,  may  be  ascertained 
by  an  examination  of  the  references  in  the  following  Table. 
It  contains  all  the  direct  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament 
in  the  New  Testament. 


Genesis. 


G^PTESIS. 


I.  27.  Mark,  x.  G. 
n.  3.  Heb.  iv.  4. 
n.  7.  1  Cor.  xv.  45.  . 
n.  24.  Matt.  xix.  5. 

Mark,  x.  7. 

1.  Cor.  VI.  16. 

Eph.  V.  31. 

XII.  1.  Acts,  VII.  3. 
XII.  3.  Gal.  III.  8. 
XV.  5.  Rom.  IV.  18. 
XV.  6.  Jam.  ii.  23. 
XV.  6.  Rom.  IV.  3. 

XV.  13.  14.  Acts,  VII.  6.  7. 

XVII.  5.  Rom.  IV.  17. 

XVIII.  10.  Rom.  IX.  9. 
XXI.  10.  Gal.  IV.  30. 

XXI.  12.  Rom.  IX.  7. 

XXII.  16.  17.  Heb.  vi.  14. 


XXII.  18.  Acts,  III.  25. 

Gal.  III.  16. 

XXV.  23.  Rom.  ix.  12. 
xLvii.  31.  Hebr.  xi.  21. 

Exodus. 

II.  13.  Acts,  VII.  26. 

II.  14.  Acts,  VII.  27.  28. 
Acts,  VII.  35. 

III.  5.  7.  8.  10.  Acts,  VII.  33.  34. 
III.  6.  Matt.  XXII.  32. 

Mark,  xii.  26. 

-  Luke,  XX.  37. 

Acts,  VII.  32. 

IX.  16.  Rom.  IX.  17. 

XII.  46.  John,  XIX.  36. 

XIII.  2.  Luke,  II.  23. 

13 


98  CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TfeSTAMENT, 

Exodus.  Deuteronmy. 


XVI.  18.  2  Cor.  VIII.  15. 
XIX.  6.  1  Pet.  II.  9. 

XIX.  12.  13.  Hebr.  xii.  20. 

XX.  12.  Matt.  XV.  4. 

Matt.  XIX.  18. 

Mark,  vii.  10. 

Mark,  x.  19. 

Luke,  XVIII.  20. 

Eph.  VI.  2.  3. 

XX.  13.  Jam.  ii.  11. 

XX.  13.  14.  Rom.  xiii.  9. 

XX.  14.  Rom.  VII.  7. 

XXI.  17.  Matt.  XV.  4. 

Mark,  vii.  10. 

XXII.  8.  Acts,  xxiii.  5. 

XXIV.  8.  Hebr.  ix.  20. 

XXV.  40.  Hebr.  viii.  5. 
xxxii.  1.  Acts,  VII.  40. 
XXXII.  6.  1  Cor.  x.  7. 
xxxiii.  19.  Rom.  IX.  15. 

Leviticus. 

XI.  44.  1  Pet.  1.  10. 

XII.  8.  Luke,  II.  24. 
xvHi.  5.  Rom.  X.  5. 

Gal.  HI.  11.  12. 

XIX.  18.  Matt.  XIX.  19. 

Matt.  XXII.  39. 

Mark,  xii.  31. 

-  Luke,  X.  27. 

Rom.  xiii.  9. 

Gal.  V.  14. 

Jam.  II.  8. 

XXVI.  11.  12.  2  Cor.  vi.  16. 

Numbers. 

xvi.  5.  2  Tim.  u.  19. 


V.  16.  Eph.  VI.  2.  3. 

VI.  45.  Mark,  xii.  29.  30. 
VI.  5.  Matt.  XXII.  37. 

Luke,  X.  27. 

VI.  13.  Matt.  IV.  10. 

Luke,  IV.  8. 

VI.  16.  Matt.  IV.  7. 
Luke,  IV.  12. 

VIII.  3.  Matt.  IV.  4. 

Luke,  IV.  4. 

IX.  19.  Hebr.  xn.  21. 

XVIII.  15.  19.  Acts,  III.  22.  23. 

Acts,  VII.  37. 

XIX.  15.  John,  VIII.  17. 

2  Cor.  XIII.  1. 

XXI.  23.  Gal.  m.  13. 
XXV.  4.  1  Cor.  IX.  9. 

1  Tim.  V.  18. 

XXV.  5.  Matt.  XXII.  24. 

Mark,  xn.  19. 

Luke,  XX,  28. 

XXVII.  26.  Gal.  iii.  10. 

XXX.  12.  Rom.  X.  6, 

XXXI.  8.  Hebr.  xiii.  5. 
xxxii.  17.  1  Cor.  X.  20. 
xxxii.  21.  Rom.  X,  19. 

XXXII.  35.  Rom.  xii.  19. 
XXXII.  43.  Rom.  xv.  10. 
XXXII.  35.  36.  Hebr.  x.  30. 

Joshua. 

1.  5.  Hebr.  xiii.  5. 

1.  Samuel. 

xiii.  14.  Acts,  xiii.  22. 


CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


m 


2.  Sahvel/ 

vu.  14.  2  Cor.  VI.  17.  18. 

Heb.  1.  5. 

1.  Kings. 

XIX.  14.  Rom.  XI.  3. 
XIX.  18.  Rom.  XI.  4. 

Job. 

V.  13.  1  Cor.  III.  10. 

Psalms. 

n.  1.2.  Acts,  IV.  25.26. 
u.  7.  Acts,  xiii.  33. 

Heb.  1.  5. 

Heb.  V.  5. 

ii.  9.  Rev.  11.  27. 
V.  10.  Rom.  111.  13. 
viii.  3.  Matt.  xxi.  16. 
vni.  5.  Heb.  u.  6. 
viu.  7.  1  Cor.  XV.  27. 
VIII.  17.  18.  Heb.  II.  13. 
X,  7.  Rom.  HI.  14. 

XIV.  1.  Rom.  HI.  10.  11.  12. 
XVI.  8.  Acts,  II.  25. 
XVI.  10.  Acts,  xui.  35. 
xviii.  50.  Rom.  XV.  9. 
XIX.  5.  Rom.  X.  18. 
XXII.  1.  Matt,  xxvii.  46. 

-  Mark,  xv.  34. 
XXII.  19.  Matt,  xxvii.  35. 

-       John,  XIX.  24. 
xxii.  23.  Heb.  ii.  12. 
XXIV.  1.  1  Cor.  X.  26. 

XXXI.  6.  Luke,  xxiii.  46. 

XXXII.  1.  2.  Rom.  IV.  7.  8. 
xxxiv.  12.  1.  Pet.  III.  10. 


Psalms. 

xxxvi.  2.  Rom.  iii.  18. 
XL.  7.  Hebr.  x.  5. 
XLi.  10.  John,  XIII.  18. 
xLiv.  22.  Rom.  viii.  36. 
XLV.  7.  8.  Heb.  1.  8.  9. 
Li.  6.  Rom.  in.  4.  , 

Lxviii.  19.  Eph.  IV.  8. 
Lxix.  10.  John,  II.  17. 

Rom.  XV.  3. 

LXIX.  23.  24.  Rom.  xi.  9.  10. 
LXIX.  26.  Acts,  1.  20. 
Lxxviii.  2.  Matt.  XIII.  35. 
Lxxviii.  24.  John,  vi.  31. 
Lxxxii.  6.  John,  x.  34. 
Lxxxix.  21.  Acts,  xiii.  22. 
xci.  11.12.  Matt.  IV.  6. 

Luke,  IV.  10. 

11.^ 
xciv.  11.  1  Cor.  III.  20. 
xcv.  7.  Heb.  iii.  7. 
xcv.  7.  8.  Hebr.  iii.  15. 

Heb.  IV.  7. 

xcv.  11.  Heb.  IV.  3. 
xcvii.  7.  Heb.  1.6. 
cii.  26...  Heb.  1.  10... 
CIV.  4.  Heb.  1.  7. 
€ix.  3.  John,  XV.  25. 
cix.  8.  Acts,  1.  20. 
ex.  1.  Matt.  xxii.  44. 

Mark,  xii.  36. 

Luke,  XX.  42.  43. 


Acts,  II.  34.  35. 

1  Cor.  XV.  25. 

Heb.  I.  13. 

ex.  4.  Heb.  V.  6. 

Heb.  vii.  17.  21. 

cxii.  9.  2.  Cor.  IX.  9. 
cxvi.  10.  2  Cor.  iv.  13. 
cxvii.  1.  Rom.  XV,  11. 


100 


CANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


Psalms. 

cxviii.  6.  Hebr.  xiii.  6. 
cxviii.  22.  Luke,  xx.  17. 
CXVIII.  22.  23.  Matt.  xxi.  42. 

Mark,  XII.  10. 11 

Acts,  IV.  11. 

. 1  Pet.  II.  7. 

cxL.  4.  Rom.  III.  13. 

Proverbs. 

III.  1,1.  Hebr.  XII.  5. 
III.  12.  Hebr.  xii.  6. 
III.  34.  Jam.  iv.  6. 
X.  12.  1  Pet.  IV.  8. 
XXII.  9.  2  Cor.  IX.  7. 
XXV.  21.  22.  Rom.  xii.  20. 
xxvi.  11.  2  Pet.  11.22. 

Isaiah. 

1.  9.  Rom.  IX.  29. 
VI.  9.  Matt.  XIII.  14. 

Mark.  iv.  12. 

Luke,  VIII.  10. 

VI.  9.  10.  Acts/xxviii.  26.  27. 

VI.  10.  John,  xii.  40. 

VII.  14.  Matt.  1.  23. 

VIII.  12.  13.  1  Pet.  III.  14.  15, 
VIII.  14.  Rom.  IX.  33. 

Rom.  X.  11. 

viii.  23.  Matt.  IV.  15.  16. 
ix.  1.  

X.  22.  23.  Rom.  ix.  27.  28. 

XI.  10.  Rom.  XV.  12. 
XXII.  13.  1  Cor.  XV.  32. 
XXV.  8.  1  Cor.  XV.  54. 
xxvm.  11.  12.  1  Cor.  XIV.  2L 
xxvin.  16.  Rom.  ix.  33. 


Isaiah. 

—  Rom.  X.  I L 

1  Pet.  H.  6. 

XXIX.  10.  Rom.  XI.  8. 
.XXIX.  13.  Matt.  XV.  8.  9. 

Mark,  vn.  6.  7. 

XXIX.  14.  1  Cor.  19. 
XL.  3.  Matt.  HI.  3. 

Mark,  i.  2.  3.' 

Luke,  HI.  4.  5.  6. 

John,i.  23. 

XL.  6.  1  Pet.  I.  24.  25. 
XL.  13.  Rom.  XI.  34. 

1  Cor.  II.  16. 

XLH.  1.  Matt.  XH.  18. 

xLv.  23.  Rom.  XIV.  11. 

XLix.  6.  Acts,  XHi.  47. 

XLix.  8.  2  Cor.  VI.  2. 

Lu.  5.  Rom.  11.  24. 

LH.  7.  Rom.  X.  1 5. 

Lii.  11.12.  2  Cor.  VI.  17.  18. 

LH.  15.  Rom.  XV.  21. 

Liii.  1.  John  XH.  38. 

LHi.  3.  Rom.  X.  16. 

LHi.  4.  Matt.  vHi.  17. 

LHi.  5.  1  Pet.  II.  24, 

LiH.  7.  8.  Acts,  viH.  32.  33. 

LiH.  9.  1  Pet.  11.  22. 

LHi.  12.  Mark,  xv.  28. 

Luke,  xxH.  37. 

Liv.  1.  Gal.  IV.  27. 
Liv.  13.  John,  vi.  45. 
Lv.  3.  Acts,  xiH.  34. 
Lvi.  7.  Matt.  xxi.  13. 

Mark,  xi.  17. 

'-    Luke,  xix.  46. 

Lix.  7.  8.  Rom.  HI.  15. 

Lix.  20.  21.  Rom.  xi.  26.  27. 

Lxi.  1.2.  Luke,  IV.  18.  19, 


Isaiah. 


UANON  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 
MiCAII. 


101 


Lxiv.  13.  1.  Cor.  II.  9. 
Lxv.  1.  2.  Acts,  vu.  49.  40. 
ixv.  1.2.  Rom.  X.  20.21. 

Jeremiah. 

vii.  11.  Matt.  XXI.  13. 

Mark,  xi.  17. 

Luke,  XIX.  46. 

IX.  23.  1.  Cor.  1.31. 
XXXI.  15..  Matt.  II.  18. 
XXXI.  31..  Hebr.  viii.  8. 
XXXI,  33.  34.  Hebr.  x.  16,  17. 

HOSEA. 

11.  1.  Rom.  IX.  S6. 
II.  25.  Rom.  IX.  25. 
VI.  6.  Matt.  IX.  13. 
— —  Matt.  XII.  7. 
XI.  1.  Matt.  II.  15. 
XIII.  14.  1  Cor.  XV.  65. 

Joel. 

«i.  1.  Acts,  11.  17. 
ui.  5.  Rom.  X.  13. 

Amos. 

V.  25.  Acts,  VII.  42.  43. 
IX.  11.  12.  Acts,  XV.  16.  17. 


V.  I.  Matt.  II.  0. 
Habakkuk. 

I.  5.  Acts,  XIII.  41.' 

II.  3.  4.  Hebr.  x.  37.  38. 

II.  4.  Rom. !.  17. 
Gal.  111.  U.  12. 

Haggai. 

n.  6.  Hebr.  xii.  26. 

Zechariah. 

IX.  9.  Matt.  xxi.  5. 

John,  XII.  15. 

XI.  13.  Matt,  xxvii.  9.  10. 
xii.  10.  John,  xix.  37. 
xiii.  7.  Matt.  XXVI.  31. 
Mark,  xiv.  27. 

Malachi. 

I.  2.  3.  Rom.  ix.  13. 

III.  1.  Matt.  XI.  10. 

Mark,  i.  2.  3. 

Luke,  vii.  27. 

III.  23.  Luke,  i.  17. 


102  CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAM&NT. 

There  are,  in  the  New  Testament,  no  direct  quotations  from 
the  following  books : 

Judges.  Nehemiah.  Daniel. 

Ruth.  Esther.  Obadiah. 

n  Kings.  Ecclesiastes.  Jonah. 

I  Chronicles.  The  Song  of  Solomon.  Nahum. 

II  Chronicles.  Lamentations.  Zephaniah. 
Ezra.                 Ezekiel. 

But  references  are  made  to  some  of  these : 

To  Judges,  in  Heb.  xi.  30 — 34.  and  Acts,  xiii*  20 ;  to 
II  Kings  in  Luke,  iv.  25 — 27.  x.  4.  Heb.  xi.  35 ;  i  Chro- 
nicles, in  Heb.  v.  4;  ii  Chronicles,  in  Matt.  ii.  5L 
xxni.  35.  Lu.  xi.  51  ;  Nehemiah,  Rom.  ii.  24 ;  Esther, 
Rev.  XI.  6;  Ecclesiastes,  in  1  Tim.  vi.  7.  Jam.  iv. 
5 ;  Lamentations,  1  Cor.  iv.  15 ;  Ezekiel,  in  ii  Pet. 
II.  5.  III.  4.  Rev. ;  Daniel,  in  Matt,  xxxiv.  15.  Mark, 
xiH.  14.  Heb.  XI.  33.  34;  Jonah,  in  Matt.  xu.  39— 4L 
Luke,  XI.  30.  32  ;  Nahum,  Rev*  xviii.  3. 


Storr,  in  his  Biblical  Theology,  (quoted  above,  §.  8.  note  *), 
has  exhibited, /rom  the  New  Testament^  a  View  of  the  "  Divine 
authority  of  the  Old  Testament^^^  in  Vol.  i.  B.  i.  §.  13.;  and 
in  §.  14.,  he  gives  the  "  Proof ,''^  from  the  New  Testament^  "  that 
the  Jewish  Canon,  in  the  days  of  Jesus,  contained  the  same  booki 
which  now  constitute  our  Old  Testament,"  Horne,  in  his  In- 
troduction to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  Vol.  n.  P.  i.  Ch.  ix.  Sect,  i., 
has  classified  and  arranged  the  "  Quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  New."  The  most  convenient  and  satis- 
factory work,  as  an  aid  to  the  student,  who  desires  to  investi- 
gate the  subject,  is  entitled  "  Passages  cited  from  the  Old 
Testament  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  compared 
with  the  Original  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint  Version :  ar- 


CANON  or  THE  OLD   TESTAMENT.  103 

ranged  by  the  Junior  Class  in  the  Theological  Seminary, 
Andover,  and  published  at  their  request,  under  the  super- 
intendence of  M.  Stuart,  Associate  Professor  of  Sacrefl 
Literature."     pp.  39.  Quarto,  Andover,  1827.       Tr.  ] 


Note  [  B  ]. 

The  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New  are  of 
two  kinds. 

I.  Some  books  are  quoted /or  the  establishment  of  religious 
truths.  To  this  class,  without  controversy,  belong  the  fol- 
lowing books. 

1.  The  books  of  Moses.     Matt.  iv.  4. 7.  xv.  4.  xxn.  31. 37. 
Mark,  vii.  9.  10.  13.     1  Cor.  ix.  8. 

2.  Isaiah.  Matt.  i.  23.  (viii.  17.  xii.  18.  Mark,  xi.  17. 
John,  VI.  45.),  Acts,  viii.  30 — 35.     Rom.  xii.  i  Pet.  ii.  6. 

3.  Jeremiah.     Hebr.  x.  15.  16.  17. 

4.  Psalms.     Matt.  xxn.  43.  44.     Acts,  ii.  25. 

II.  Some  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  only  cited  by  the 
way ;  sometimes  for  illustration,  sometimes  as  parallels. 

The  student,  who  wishes  to  examine  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject, will  be  furnished  with  a  list  of  the  direct  and  indirect 
quotations,  by  consulting  Knapp's  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  in  which,  at  the  close  of  Tom.  ii.,  is  given  a  table,  en- 
titled :  Recensus  locorum  Veteris  Testamenti  in  Kovo  vel  ipsis 
verbis,  vel  obscurius  commemoratorum. 

The  whole  subject  is  very  ably  discussed  by  the  following 
writers,  in  addition  to  those  cited  in  the  last  note  : 

Drusius,  in  the  work  entitled ;  In  Parallela  Sacra  Kotae, 
inserted  in  the  Critici  Sacri,  Lond.,  1660.  Vol.  virr. 
pp.  1266— 1325. 


104  CANON  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

SuRENHUSius,  inhis  niK^on  -ISD  sive  B1BA02  K ATA AA APHIS, 
in  quo  secundum  veterum  theologorum  Hebraeorum  for- 
mulas allegandi,  et  modos  interpretandi  conciliantur  loca 
ex  V.  in  JV.  T,  allegata.  Amstelaedamiy  1713,  small  4to. 
pp.  712. 

MicHAELis,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  i. 
P;  I,  Ch.  V.  Sect.  I— V. 

Owen,  on  the  Modes  of  Quotation  used  by  the  Evangelical 
writers. 

Shlegel,  in  a  Treatise  printed  in  the  Thesaurus  Novus 
Theolog.  Philolog.  P.  ii.  T.  ii. 

Scott,  in  his  contributions  on  the  subject,  found  in  the 
Christian  Observer;  see  the  Vols,  for  1810  and  1811. 

Some  excellent  observations  may  be  found  also,  in  a  Lec- 
ture by  Professor  Woods,  Andover,  pp.  32.,  on  "  The 
Objection  to  the  Inspiration  of  the  Evangelists  and  .Apostles 
from  their  manner  of  quoting  texts  from  the  Old  Testa- 
mmt." 


ESSAY 

OS  THE 

JLIFE  AND  WRITINGS 

OF 

SAMUEL  BOCHART. 


BY  WILLIAM  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  A.  M. 

CHAPLAIN    AND   SUPEHINTHNDENT   OF   THE  KHW-YOHK 
PROTESTANT   EPISCOPAL    PUBLIC   SCHOOL. 


u 


ESSAY. 


Success  in  giving  a  tolerably  accurate  outlhie  of  the  events 
of  a  scholar's  life,  and  some  idea  of  the  contents  and  charac- 
ter of  the  vrorks  on  which  his  fame  is  built,  is  all  that  will  be 
aimed  at  in  the  following  Essay.  The  extraordinary  reputa- 
tion of  BocHART  would,  it  is  true,  justify  a  much  more  ex- 
tensive work.  His  hfe,  although  not  eventful,  contains  much 
that  would  afford  theme  for  copious  remark  ;  and  a  thorough 
<iriticism  of  his  voluminous  and  most  learned  works  would 
fill  a  volume.  The  imperfect  sketch  which  follows  will  not 
do  justice  to  the  subject,  but  it  may,  at  least,  furnish  a  few 
facts  respecting  a  man  who,  once  the  wonder  of  his  age,  is 
now  almost  forgotten,  and  excite  some  attrition  to  books 
which  are  at  this  day  more  praised  than  read. 

Few  men  have  acquired  a  higher  reputation  for  abstract 
learning  than  Boch  art.  At  an  early  period  of  his  life  his  fame 
i'was  extended  beyond  the  limits  of  his  country ;  and  on  the  pub- 
lication of  his  principal  works,  it  almost  instantaneously  obtain- 
ed the  most  exalted'rank.  Tlie  most  distinguished  scholars,  in 
an  age  which  of  all  before  or  since  excelled  in  varied  erudition, 
vied  with  each  other  in  admiring  and  extolling  the  enjiinence  of 
BocHART  in  the  very  acquirements  for  which  they  themselves 
were  most  celebrated,  {a)      From  them  the  crowd  of  second- 


(a)  Sarrau,  a  coansellor  at  Paris,  an  accomplished  scholar  and  patron 
of  learned  men,  says  in  a  letter  to  Saumaise,  as  early  as  March  15, 
1645:  "Cadomensis  BocHARTuseruditissimum  commentarium  in  Genes, 
cap.  X.  perfecit — in  quo — omnigena  doctrina — suaviter  te  afficiet." — 
J.  L.  Fabricy  (in  Orat.  Inaug.  de  Animarum  Iramortalitale,  in  3660,) 
says  of  him  "praecipuum  aevi  noslri  dictus  sit  miraculum,  cujus  si 
quis  nomen  ignoret,  aut  stupendum  cumque  summa  mddestia  con- 
junctum  ernditionem  non  suspiciat,  ilium  penitus  eeyuxdcf  esse  o.porte-at*' 


108  MEMOIRS  OF 

rate  writers,  who  depend  on  their  Coryphaei  for  their  judg- 
ments and  opinions,  took  the  tone  ;  and  since  that  time  it  would 
have  been  hterary  heresy  to  consider  Bochart  as  other  than  a 
scholar  of  the  first  rank.  The  honourable  appellation  of  "  the 
learned  " — eruditus — is  almost  invariably  prefixed  to  his  name, 
and  would  you  give  an  example  of  nearly  unbounded  reading  {h) 
and  equal  diligence  in  its  appHcation,  cite  Bochart,  and  the 
aptness  of  the  illustration  will  be  immediately  allowed,  (c) 

Considering  the  exalted  station  which  our  author  has  main- 
tained among  the  learned, — his  intimate  connexion  with  a 
great  number  of  the  most  celebrated  literary  characters  of 
his  age  and  country,  and  his  extensive  correspondence  with 
eminent  individuals,  it  is  rather  surprising  that  no  independ- 
ent biographical  account  of  him  should  have  been  given  to  the 
world.  Within  the  last  half  century,  many  less  prominent 
and  less  interesting  characters  have  been  made  the  subjects 


The  opinions  of  G.  J.  Vossius,  Isaac  Vossius,  Tanaquil  Faber,  Lewis 
Cappel,  Paul  Colomies,  and  Meric  Casaubon,  to  the  same  effect,  are 
cited  by  Spizehus,  Inf.  Lit.  p.  917,  919,  925. 

(6)  In  his  excellent  remarks  on  the  antiquities  of  the  Phoenicians, 
Bochart  appears  to  have  made  no  use  of  a  Spanish  work  on  the  anti- 
quities of  Spain  and  Africa,  by  Berna  rd  Aldrete,  published  in  1614 ;  and 
as  this  is  an  opus  classicum,  B.'s  inattention  to  it  must  have  arisen  from 
ignorance  of  it.  The  remark  is  made  by  Le  Clerc,  Bibl.  Choisie, 
V.  389.  and  393,  and  after  him  by  Fabricius,  Bibliographia  Antiquaria 
p.  43.  That  two  of  the  sharpest  critics  and  greatest  readers  in  the 
learned  world  should  have  so  carefully  noted  a  single  oversight  in  Bo- 
chart, and  should  have  been  able  to  discover  only  one,  is  a  strong  proof 
of  the  great  extent  of  his  reading.  Such  criticisms  aregreatly  creditable 
to  his  learning.  They  show  that  its  boundaries  were  those  of  human 
infirmity;  '  tantura  nan  omnia  scivit.' 

(r)  SrizELius^  in  that  elaborately  learned  and  eccentric  work,  the 
'  Infelix  Literatus,'  has  a  chapter  entitled  '  Solertia  Jugis,  sive  Litera- 
torum,  ingenio  pariter  ac  laboriosa  sedulitate  aevo  nostro  maxirae 
illustrium  Quadriga  pobilissima.'  The  illustrious ybw are  Isaac  Casau- 
bon, Ger.  Jo.  Vossius,  John  Selden,  and  Bochart,  He  speaks  of  them 
as  '' fulgentissima  orbis  eruditi  sidera;"  and  talks  of  *' quantis  (inde- 
fotigabili  sua  studiositate)  thesauris  universam  rempublicam  literariam 
«»;tornRnnt.  locupletarintnup  "     Inf.  Lit. Common,  xxx.  p.  887. 


SAMUEL  BOGHART.  109 

i&f  extensive  works,  while  he  has  been  suflered  to  languish 
ia  comparative  obscurity. 

Soon  after  Boc hart's  decease,  his  junior  colleague  in  the 
pastoral  care  of  the  church  at  Caen,  Du  Bosc,  who  is  well 
known  as  the  zealous  and  able  advocate  of  the  liberties  of 
his  fellow  Protestants  in  France,  avowed  an  intention  to 
write  his  life,  (d)  But  this  intention  was  completely  frustrat- 
ed by  the  troubles  which  preceded  the  revocation  of  the  edict 
of  Nantz,  and  the  consequences  of  that  revocation.  These 
commenced  almost  immediately  after  Bochart*s  decease, 
and  resulted  in  the  exile  of  Du  Bosc,  with  the  greater  portion 
of  his  flock,  to  Holland,  where  he  shortly  after  died.  Had 
no  such  series  of  untoward  events  occurred,  we  should  doubt- 
less be  in  possession  of  a  faithful  portraiture  of  the  life  and 
manners  of  our  author,  and  that  with  the  additional  advantage 
of  its  being  from  a  master's  pen. 

This  project  having  failed,  Stephen  Morin,  a  junior  asso- 
ciate with  Bochart  and  Du  Bosc  in  the  care  of  the  church 
at  Caen,  was  induced,  by  the  intreaties  of  their  common 
friends,  to  draw  up,  partly  from  recollection  and  partly  from 
papers  in  the  possession  of  Bochart's  family,  a  short  account 
<}f  the  life  and  writings  of  our  author  in  the  Latin  language,  (e) 
This  has  been  prefixed  to  both  the  editions  of  Bochart's  col- 
lected works.  It  is  the  first  article  in  the  third  volume  of  the 
splendid  edition  of  Leusden  and  Villamand.  Narration  was 
not  the  forte  of  Morin,  and  accordingly,  as  a  history  of  the 
life  of  Bochart,  his  essay  merits  very  little  praise.  The  detail 
of  facts  is  dry,  unnecessarily  concise,  and  provokingly  meagre. 
His  reflections  are  seldom  more  than  common  place,  often 
almost  puerile.  Bat  as  a  friend  and  apologist  of  his  deceased 
colleague,  he  shows  his  zeal,  and  learning,  and  ingenuity,  in  an 
advantageous  light.  His  account  of  the  origin  and  design 
of  the  published  and  unpublished  works  of  Bochart,  also,  is 


(rf)  MoRiNUs  de  Clar.  Boch.  p.  1. 

(e)  Stephanus  Moeinus  de  Clarissirao  Bocharto  et  omnibus  ejus 
i5cripti« 


no  MEMOIRS  OF 

tolerably  interesting  and  well  arranged.  On  the  whole,  his 
thirty-six  folio  pages  are  filled  with  matter  rather  above  the 
general  character  of  the  biographical  notices  commonly  pre- 
fixed to  posthumous  editions  of  the  works  of  celebrated  men. 
From  this  life,  a  notice  of  Bochart  contained  in  the  Infelix 
liiteratus  of  Spizelius,  and  several  scattered  anecdotes  in 
Huet's  Commentaries  on  his  own  Life,  the  materials  of  the 
following  sketch  have  been  principally  derived. 

When  a  man  has  acquired  by  his  own  talents  and  industry 
an  enduring  reputation,  it  can  add  but  little  to  his  importance 
to  trace  his  descent  from  a  noble  ancestry.  Yet  that  little  the 
biographer  is  seldom  willing  to  spare  ;  and  accordingly,  scanty 
as  are  the  memorials  of  Samuel  Bochart,  it  has  been  care- 
fully recorded  that  he  derived  his  origin,  on  the  father's  side, 
from  a  noble  family.  The  frequency  of  the  instances  in  which 
several  individuals  of  the  same  family  have  excelled  in  the 
same  or  similar  branches  of  science  or  the  arts  attaches  rather 
more  real  value  to  a  near  connexion  with  men  distinguished 
for  their  natural  endowments.  Of  this  advantage,  also,  our 
author  was  not  destitute,  his  mother  being  sister  to  the  famous 
Peter  Moulin  or  Molin^us.  It  was  of  more  importance  to 
him,  however,  that  his  parents  were  themselves  eminent  for 
their  talents  and  their  virtues.  His  father,  Bochart  de  Mes- 
NiLLET,  having  filled  the  station  of  Chief  Pastor  of  the  Re- 
formed Church  at  Rouen,  with  reputation,  for  many  years ;  and 
his  mother  having  even  acquired  celebrity  for  her  remarkable 
prudence  and  sedateness,  and  unfeigned  piety.  Of  such 
parents  he  was  born  at  Rouen  in  1599.  Nothing  is  recorded 
of  his  early  youth,  except  that  it  was  well  spent.  There  are  yet 
extant  forty-four  Greek  verses  of  no  contemptible  character, 
composed  by  him  at  the  early  age  of  thirteen,  and  addressed 
to  his  preceptor,  who  deemed  them  of  sufficient  value  to  be 
prefixed  to  a  Corpus  Romanorum  Antiquitatum,  published  in 
1612.  These  verses  are  of  no  small  importance  in  tracing  the 
literary  life  of  our  author,  since  they  inform  us  that  he  was 
the  cherished  and  grateful  pupil  of  no  less  a  scholar  than 
Thomas  Dempster.  This  man,  a  Scotchman  by  birth,  a 
tutor  in  the  University  of  Paris,  was  an  object  of  admiration 


SAtfUEL  fiOCUATt'A  111 

wifi\  nis  cotemporaries  for  his  extraordinary  talents,  his  un- 
common boldness  and  great  personal  courage,  and  especially 
his  extensive  reading  and  astonishing  memory.  It  is  said  of 
him  that  he  did  not  know  what  it  was  to  forget,  and  that  there 
was  no  passage  or  circumstance  in  any  ancient  author  with 
which  he  was  not  perfectly  acquainted.  (/)  The  number 
and  variety  of  his  works  prove  the  use  which  he  made  of  such 
extraordinary  endowments.  To  have  been  placed  at  an  early 
age  under  the  care  of  such  a  man  was  undeniably  no  small 
advantage  to  Bochart,  and  in  all  probability  contributed 
greatly  to  form  him  to  the  character  in  which  he  afterward 
appeared.  On  the  other  hand,  that  such  an  advantage  was 
not  thrown  away  upon  him,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  a 
man  of  such  distinguished  learning  as  Dempster  was  willing 
to  prefix  the  commendatory  verses  of  his  pupil  to  one  of  his 
most  elaborate  productions.  Shortly  after  the  publication  of 
those  verses  our  author  was  removed  to  the  College  at 
Sedan,  (g)  He  there  studied  philosophy  under  John  Smith, 
a  clergyman  and  professor  of  the  institution ;  and  in  1615, 
sustained  his  public  theses  in  that  branch  with  much  credit. 
These  he  dedicated  in  verse  to  his  grandfather,  Joachim 
Moulin,  a  pastor  at  Orleans,  and  to  his  uncle  Peter  Mouliin', 
then  resident  at  Paris.  About  the  same  time  he  also  publish- 
ed several  other  minor  poems,  which  do  credit  to  his  pro- 
ficiency in  the  Latin  language,  and  the  principles  of  its  versi- 
fication. One  in  particular,  bearing  date  1616,  is  worthy  of 
notice,  as  a  remarkable  instance  of  the  same  indefatigable  in- 
dustry which  adhered  to  him  through  life,  and  as  exhibiting  an 
extraordinary  ingenuity  which,  perhaps,  contributed  to  lessen 
the  value  of  the  learned  labours  of  his  maturer  years.  A 
friend  and  classmate  had  published  some  theses  De  Mundo. 
Bochart,  to  do  him  honour,  composed  a  copy  of  complimen- 


(/)  Bayle,Dict.  Art.  DEMPSTER.    NoteE. 

(g)  He  was  probably  residing  at  Paris,  in  the  house  of  his  uncle  Peter 
Moulin,  while  he  was  under  the  care  of  Dempster.  Morin.  ubi  supra, 
p.  2. 


il2  MEMOIRS  OF 

taiy  verses,  increasing  in  six  lines  from  a  dimeter  to  a  fuH 
hexameter,  and  decreasing  again  to  a  dimeter  in  as  many  more, 
so  as  to  form  the  superficies  of  a  circle.  A  large  O  circum- 
scribed the  whole,  and  this  letter  formed  the  beginning  and 
end  of  every  line,  (h)  Some  other  complimentary  poems, 
published  in  1618,  on  occasion  of  the  departure  of  two  young 
noblemen  from  Sedan,  display  considerable  powers  of  versi- 
fication, and  some  invention,  and  prove  the  continuance  of 
Bochart's  attachment  to  these  lighter  studies.  Nevertheless, 
although  he  indulged  in  these  amusements,  while  at  Sedan,  he 
made  theology  the  principal  subject  of  1ms  attention,  studying 
it  under  the  learned  and  celebrated  James  Capel.  About  1619 
he  left  Sedan,  and  went,  as  nearly  as  Morin  could  ascer- 
tain (i)  to  the  Protestant  university  at  Saumur,  there  studying 
divinity  under  the  famous  Scotch  divine  John  Cameron,  who 
succeeded  Gomar  in  his  Professorship  in  that  university  in 
1618.  The  civil  disturbances  obliged  Cameron  to  retire  to 
London  in  1621.  Bochart  accompanied  him,  attending  his 
private  lectures  there.  According  to  Morin,  {k)  his  stay  was 
short,  as  toward  the  close  of  the  same  year  he  was  at  Leyden, 


(h)  I  insert  this  literary  trifle,  to  convey  an  accurate  idea  of  the  la- 
bour which  must  have  been  wasted  in  its  composition. 

rbis    orig^  ^^ 
rnatus,  situs,  ord 
/     lympus  ipse  in  parvul 
/  rdine    pingitup    hoc    libell 
nunc,  quisquis  es,  aggredi  cavet 
pemque  potius,  ferre  si  potes,  fert 
rbe  vel  extorris  fugies,  extorris  olympj 
rcusque  solus  supererit  tibi  raiser 
Isace,    metum    mente    repellit 
rbera  quippe  tegit  tuus  umb 
rbis    aderit    tibi    mutu 
pponesvalidumtu 
rbera  inimic 


(i)  MoRiK.  ubi  supra.  (k)  Moriw.  ubi  supra. 


siudying  the  Arabic  language,  and  perfecting  his  knowledge 
of*  Hebrew,  under  Erpenius,  the  first  Arabic  scholar  of  his 
day ;  and  at  the  same  time  attending  the  theological  lectures 
of  Andrew  Rivet.  (/)  If  this  be  correct,  Bochart  must 
have  visited  England  twice  ;  since  it  is  certain  that  in  1622  he 
was  studying  at  Oxford,  (w)  and  in  the  Lent  or  spring  term 
of  the  year  was  admitted  a  public  student  in  the  library  of  that 
university,  at  that  time  the  accustomed  resort  of  studious 
foreigners.  The  common  complaint  of  continental  scholars 
respecting  the  peculiarity  of  the  English  pronunciation  of  the 
Latin  language  was  made  by  our  traveller.  A  laughable  oc- 
currence, which  took  place  during  his  residence  at  the  Univer- 
sity, afforded  him,  it  must  be  confessed,  some  ground.  A  crea- 
tion of  Doctors  being  about  to  take  place,  Bochart  paid  a  visit 
to  one  of  the  Academical  Senate  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
admission  to  a  sight  of  the  ceremony.  After  stating  his  request 
with  some  urgency,  he  was  no  little  surprized  and  mortified 
to  receive  for  answer  that  *  the  Academical  funds  were  at  that 
time  very  low,'  accompanied  with  the  tender  of  a  few  crowns. 
The  good  doctor  had  been  unable  to  understand  the  continental 
pronunciation  of  his  visiter,  and  had  only  collected  from  his 
speech  that  he  was  a  foreigner  in  want  of  something.  Accus- 
tomed, no  doubt,  to  applications  for  pecuniary  aid  (for  Eng- 
land was  at  that  time  noted  for  her  liberality  to  needy  scholars 
from  abroad)  he  presumed  the  object  of  Bochart  to  be  of  tho 
same  kind,  and  framed  his  reply  accordingly.  The  difference 
of  pronunciation  must  have  been  great,  which  could  so  com- 
pletely interrupt  communication  between  two  persons  well 
acquainted  with  the  language  in  which  they  attempted  to  con- 
verse. The  same  difference  exists  to  the  present  day,  al- 
though it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  either  of  the  modern  me- 


(l)  Rivet  was  Bochart's  uncle  by  marriage 'with  his  mother's  sister; 
and  subsequently  displayed  his  esteem  for  his  distinguished  relative  and 
pupil,  by  dedicating  to  him,  jointly  with  P.  du  Moulin,  W.  Rivet,  and 
J.  M.  DE  Langle,  his  Calholicm  Orlhodoxus^  in  1629. 

(m)  Anth.  Wood.  Fasti  Oxonienses,  i.  158. 

15 


114  MEMOIRS  OF 

thods  is  conlbrniable  to  the  ancient  pronunciation  of  the 
language.  There  is  no  plea  for  such  an  obstinate  adherence 
on  either  side  to  peculiarities  which  deprive  the  Latin  scholar  of 
half  the  benefit  of  his  acquisition,  by  taking  from  it  the  cha- 
racter of  an  universal  language  and  general  medium  of  com- 
munication between  the  learned.  As  the  English,  and  those 
who  in  this  country  have  followed  their  pronunciation,  are  the 
raihority,  it  behoves  them  to  cede  to  the  generally  prevailing 
custom,  and  render  their  own  Latin  intelligible  when  spoken, 
to  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  themselves  able  to  understand 
the  conversation  of  foreign  men  of  letters. 

BocHART,  having  spent  his  time  abroad  with  pleasure  and 
profit,  was  recalled  to  his  native  place  by  the  death  of  his 
father,  and  the  duties  he  owed  to  his  widowed  mother.  With 
her  he  resided  some  time  at  Rouen,  until  the  Reformed  Congre- 
gation at  Caen  being  deprived,  by  death,  of  one  of  its  pastors, 
and  hearing  of  the  young  Bochart's  extraordinary  talents  and 
acquirements,  unanimously  elected  him  to  supply  the  vacancy. 
He  accepted  the  appointment,  and  consequently  removed  to 
Caen,  which,  excepting  the  short  interval  of  his  journey  into 
Sweden,  was  his  place  of  residence  during  the  remainder 
of  his  life.  The  date  of  this  settlement  is  not  recorded,  but 
all  accounts  agree  in  speaking  of  its  happy  consequences ;  and 
stating  that  Bochart's  assiduity  and  faithful  attention  to  all 
the  duties  of  the  pastoral  office  quickly  gained  him  a  very 
great  degree  of  popularit}^  Preaching,  in  consequence  of 
the  peculiar,  and  perhaps  undue,  importance  which  is  attach- 
ed to  that  ordinance  by  the  reformed  churches  on  the  conti- 
nent, occupied  a  great  proportion  of  his  studies.  As  might  be 
expected  when  a  man  of  such  abilities  concentrated  his  exer- 
tions on  a  single  object,  he  met  with  eminent  success.  His 
discourses  were  warm  and  practical,  while  at  the  same  time, 
according  to  Morin,  (n)  he  displayed  consummate  ability  in 


(n)  I  quote  my  author,  because  the  assertion  appears  a  little  mar- 
vellous, and  because  his  judgment  may  have  differed  from  that  which 
would  have  been  formed  in  the  premises  by  a  modern  sermon-critic. 


,^  LIB 

'or  TUB 
SAMUEL  BOCHART.  Vv  ^il5v      ^Ti 

rendering  them  replete  with  learning,  without  in  the  least  un- 
fitting them  for  popular  effect,  or  rendering  them  above  the 
comprehension  of  his  people. 

But  BocHART  was  not  left  long  undisturbed  in  this  happy 
and  useful  connexion.  The  plans  which  the  wily  Richelieu 
had  set  in  operation  were  now  beginning  to  take  ef!ect,  and 
all  things  were  fast  ripening  for  the  downfall  of  the  re- 
formed religion  in  France.  Among  other  indications  of  the 
approach  of  that  event,  was  the  appearance  of  a  swarm  of 
self-constituted  pacificators,  who,  under  pretence  of  seeking 
by  the  oft  tried  method  of  conference  and  disputation,  to  unite 
both  parties,  were  in  reality  deepening  the  prejudices  of  the 
Romanists  and  exasperating  their  ill-will  against  the  Protes- 
tant minority.  A  conspicuous  place  among  these  wranglers 
was  held  by  one  Veron,  an  ex-Jesuit,  who,  under  authority 
of  a  royal  licence,  migrated  from  place  to  place,  holding 
formal  disputations  with  such  of  the  reformed  as  he  could 
persuade  or  tease  into  the  measure.  He  was  one  of  the  set 
known  in  history  by  the  name  of  Methodists,  on  account  of 
their  adopting  and  rigidly  observing  particular  methods  of  con- 
ducting their  controversies,  which  seemed  to^them  best  suited 
to  effect  their  ends.  His  plan  was  to  insist  that  his  antagonists 
should  make  good  their  arguments  and  opinions,  in  every  in- 
stance, by  express  and  formal  declarations  of  Holy  Writ. 
No  inference  or  conclusion,  however  fair,  no  circumstantial 
proof,  however  strong,  was  to  be  admitted.  *  You  appeal  to 
Scripture,'  was  virtually  his  language  to  Protestants,  *  and  to 
Scripture  we  will  go.  But  it  shall  be  Scripture  only,  without 
the  least  aid  of  human  reason  in  any  way  applied.'  Of  course 
there  could  be  very  little  chance  of  failure  in  such  a  contest. 
With  all  the  advantage  of  the  negative  side  of  the  question,  he 
deprived  his  opponents  of  the  use  of  the  only  evidence  which 
they  could,  or  desired  to,  bring  in  support  of  their  affirma- 
tive, (o)     This  champion  made  his  appearance  at  Caen  in 


(o)  MosHKMii.  Hist.  Eccles.  p.  873.     Simon  Lettres  Choisies,  p.  212.  5 


116  MKMOIRS  Ol 

1628,  and  ^vitll  persevering  industry  tormented  Bochart  till 
he  consented  to  a  public  disputation  in  the  castle  of  the  city. 
The  Due  de  Longueville,  at  that  time  Viceroy  of  Normandy, 
and  governor  of  the  place,  presided  ;  and  a  number  of  per- 
sons of  distinction,  with  a  great  concourse  of*  people,  of  botli 
creeds,  were  present.  The  conference  lasted  nine  days,  and 
turned  upon  all  the  principal  points  in  dispute  between  the 
Romanists  and  Protestants.  Two  secretaries  appointed  for 
that  purpose,  one  by  each  of  the  contending  parties,  took 
down  the  arguments  of  the  disputants,  and  at  the  close  of 
each  day's  session,  these  were  read  before  the  president  and 
the  whole  assembly,  and  signed  by  Bochart  and  his  antago- 
nist. Notwithstanding  all  this  formality,  the  conference,  as 
might  have  been  foreseen,  produced  no  good  result.  Of  course 
neither  the  Jesuit  nor  his  friends  admitted  that  he  was  worst- 
ed ;  and  yet  Moiun  asserts  that  he  deserted  the  field  of  com- 
bat, leaving  Bochart  to  finish  by  himself  the  third  part  of  the 
disputation,  as  it  had  been  previously  arranged.  The  friendly 
biographer  even  breaks  out  in  admiration  of  the  wonderful 
work  of  Providence  ('  mirabili  Providentiae  divinae  opera)  by 
which  the  acts  were  prepared  with  so  much  formality,  as  it 
were  merely  for  the  purpose  of  displaying  the  superior  learn- 
ing and  ability  of  Bochart,  and  the  just  predominance  of  the 
good  cause  for  which  he  was  an  advocate.  It  must  be  con- 
fessed, however,  that  the  advantage  of  the  last  zuord  may  have 
conduced  a  little  to  this  apparent  superiority,  as  Morin  al- 
lows that  the  extraordinary  acquaintance  of  Bochart  with 
the  fathers  and  Ecclesiastical  History  appeared  principally  in 
his  additions  to  his  arguments,  made  by  him  as  they  passed 
through  the  press, — which  he  was  prevented  from  using  in  the 
debate  by  the  procacity  of  his  redoubtable  antagonist  (  ! )  : 
and  that  the  main  strength  of  the  support  of  Protestantism 
lies  in  the  last  part,  with  which  V^eron  had  no  concern. 
How,  on  the  rule  of  disputing  said  to  have,  been  invariably 
observed  by  that  Jesuit,  opportunity  was  given  to  Bochart 
to  display  his  learning  in  the  fathers  and  acquaintance 
with  church  history,  and,  in  particular,  to  adduce  ffty  testi- 
monies of  the  fathers  of  tho  first  four  centuries  respecting  the 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  iVi 

Eucharist, — to  bring  more  than  three  hundred  proofs  from  the 
decrees  of  councils  and  canons  of  the  church,  of  the  falsity  of 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, — and  to  give  a  history  of 
clerical  celibacy  through  sixteen  centuries, — it  is  not  easy  to 
imagine.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  certain  that  no  small  in- 
crease of  fame  accrued  to  our  author  from  his  contest ;  and 
that  if  silence  is  proof  of  defeat,  Veron  pleaded  craven,  by 
suffering  his  adversary's  edition  of  the  dispute  quietly  to  take 
its  course  and  enjoy  its  triumph.  (/?)  The  book  was  in  French, 
and,  like  most  others  of  its  kind,  has  been  long  since  buried  in 
oblivion. 

This  incident  viras  succeeded  by  an  interval  of  quiet  study 
of  some  years'  duration..  Not  to  say,  with  Morin^,  that  Boch- 
ART  had  instilled  a  fear  of  his  talents  and  acquirements  into 
the  opposing  party,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  they  had 
discovered  that  he  was  not  the  man  to  suit  their  purpose  ;  he 
was  too  well  able  at  least,  to  defend  himself  and  his  cause,  to 
afford  them  any  hopes  of  giving  him  a  downright  overthrow ; 
and  he  was  too  cool  in  his  temperament,  and  too  much  in- 
volved in  erudition,  to  indulge  in  any  sallies  of  ill-temper 
which  might  give  an  opportunity  of  exciting  prejudice  against 
him.  He  was  consequently  left  to  the  peaceful  discharge  of 
his  parochial  duties,  and  cultivation  of  his  favourite  studies. 

However  extraordinary  it  may  appear,  the  pastoral  duties 
of  our  author  during  this  period  were  the  occasion  and  the 
source  of  the  monuments  of  wonderful  erudition,  which  he  has 


(p)  So  MoRiN  explicitly,  ubi  supra,  p.  4.  ad  im.  Yet  Rivet,  in  his  De- 
dication of  his  Calholicus  Orlhodoxus  to  Bochaht,  implies  the  contrary. 
*  You  showed  him  '  (Verou),  says  he,  *  that  he  was  ignorant  in  Greek 
and  in  Hebrew,  and  put  a  bridle  on  his  impudent  sophistry,  which  he 
has  endeavoured  to  shake  off  by  telling  many  lies  (according  to  his  cus- 
tom,) about  his  imaginary  victories ;  but  wise  men  have  not  been  de- 
ceived by  them,  and  you  have  discovered  his  vanity  by  your  answer.' 
This  looks  as  if  Veron,  so  far  from  allowing  himself  beaten  by  his  silence, 
had  publicly  claimed  the  victory,  and  had  forced  Bochart  to  assert 
his  title  to  that  praise  by  a  printed  answer.  See  Bayle,  BOCHART. 
llote  B. 


118  MEiMOIRS  OF 

left  to  perpetuate  his  fame.     He  undertook,  and  accomplished 
the  composition  of  a  course  of  sermons  to  his  congregation  on 
the  book  of  Genesis,  from  the  beginning  of  the  book  to  the 
18th  verse  of  the  49th  chapter.      These  sermons,  fairly  writ-, 
ten  out  with  his  own  hand,  he  left  among  his  other  papers,  to 
his  family.      Bochart  was  not  one  who  would  content  him- 
self with  a  superficial  or  a  partial  view  of  any  subject.    While 
engaged  in  the  study  of  the  sacred  writings  for  the  purpose  of 
eliciting  from  them  practical  instructions  for  his  flock,  he 
could  not  pass  over  the  difficulties  which  they  occasionally 
present,  nor  leave  unexamined  any,  even  the  nicest,  question 
respecting  the  facts  which  they  contain.     The  description  of 
Paradise  in  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  excited  him  to  a 
closer  investigation  of  the  real  situation  of  that  happy  spot 
than  had  ever  before  been  instituted ;  which  resulted  in  the 
treatise  de  Paradiso  terrestri,  now  extant,  though  in  a  very 
imperfect  state,  in  the  third  volume  of  his  works.     In  like 
manner,  almost  every  chapter  presented  some  points  not  suit- 
ed to  be  the  themes  of  public  discourses,  and  affording  occa- 
sion for  the  exercise  of  his  deep  research  and  unvaried  erudi- 
tion.    The  chronology  and  geography  of  the  sacred  volume, 
— its  natural  history, — the  origin  of  the  names  of  men  and 
places  which  it  records,  and  the  more  intricate  portions  of  its 
history,  were  not  matters  to  be  neglected  by  our  studious  pas- 
tor.    While  plainer,  and  perhaps  more  useful,  subjects  formed 
the  matter  of  his  weekly  instructions  to  the  people,  these  were 
the  favourite  objects  of  his  esoteric  labours,  and  in  these  he 
was  gradually  accumulating  the  astonishing  mass  of  learning, 
which  he  at  length  digested  into  his  Sacred  Geography  and 
Hierozoicon. 

MoRiN,  indeed,  speaking  with  especial  reference  to  the  book 
named  Ph  A  LEG,  gives  a  somewhat  diflferent  representation  of 
the  matter.  *  Bochart,'  says  he, '  when  he  came  to  the  10th 
chapter,  and  by  his  method  was  obliged  to  explain  the  origin 
of  nations  as  it  is  there  narrated,  bestowed  all  his  powers 
upon  the  work,  and  spared  no  pains  to  collect  every  thing 
needful  for  the  illustration  of  his  subject,  and  to  assure  him- 
self that  every  thing  which  he  asserted  in  the  pulpit  was  true. 


6AMUKL  BOCHART.  il^ 

and  capable  of  proof.'  According  to  this  view,  we  may  sup- 
pose his  people  to  have  been  weekly  edified  with  the  erudite 
discussions  now  arranged  and  condensed  into  a  single  work. 
In  charity  to  the  preacher  I  would  fain  believe  this  to  be  an 
incorrect  account.  Morin  does  not  pretend  to  have  seen  his 
discourses,  and  therefore  may  have  founded  his  assertion  mere- 
ly on  his  own  opinion,  (q)  But  an  examination  of  the  ser- 
mons preached  by  the  friends  and  contemporaries  of  Bochart 
will  show,  how  contrary  to  prevailing  custom  such  a  proceed- 
ing on  his  part  must  have  been,  and  how  little  likely  it  would 
be  to  procure  him  popularity.  The  pulpit  discourses  of  the 
age  were  almost  exclusively  doctrinal,  and  never  was  there 
more  of  onction  than  they  generally  breathed.  No  doubt 
the  sermons  of  our  author  partook  of  the  predominant  charac- 
ter, and  we  may  charge  it  rather  to  his  biographer's  blind  ad- 
miration of  his  learning  than  to  his  own  utter  want  of  judg- 
ment, that  he  is  represented  as  having  preached  his  Phaleg 
piecemeal  to  a  no  doubt  wondering,  but  surely  spiritually  starv^- 
ing,  flock. 

Eighteen  years  elapsed  before  these  lucubrations  were  suf- 
fered to  go  abroad  by  their  laborious  author.  At  length,  in 
1646,  he  was  induced  by  the  solicitations  of  his  friends  and 
learned  correspondents,  to  commit  the  First  Part  of  his  '  Sa- 
cred Geography '  to  the  press,  at  Caen,  *  whither  a  printer 
had  been  induced  to  come,  from  Sedan,  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  securing  greater  accuracy  in  its  impression,  t     The 


(g)  He  merely  says  of  them — *'  excellentissimis  concionibris,  quas 
manu  sud  ad  verbura  nitide  descriptas  suo  ex  unica  filia  nepoti  Samueli 
le  Seur  domino  de  CoUeville  in  Parlamento  Rothomaycnsi  dim  Sena- 
tori  cum  multis  aliis  scrlptis  auro  contra  aestimandis  reliquit."— How 
well  they  would  deserve  the  epithet  M.  here  bestows  on  them,  if  his  ac- 
count of  them  were  correct,  the  reader  is  left  to  judge. 

^  It  was  printed  at  Bochart's  own  expense,  with  types  purchased 
for  him,  and  by  workmen  in  his  pay.  Like  most  authors  who  publish 
for  themselves,  he  was  heartily  tired  of  the  undertaking  before  its  com- 
pletion.    Ep.  ad  Voss.  0pp.  iii.  862. 

i  And  yet  the  editors  of  the  edition  published  in  4to,  at  Frankfort,  in 


12U  MEMOIRS  iJh  ' 

name  Phaleg  or  Peleg,  that  of  the  descendant  ot  8hem,  in 
whose  days  the  dispersion  of  mankind  took  place,  was  given 
to  this  part,  to  indicate  its  subject, — the  origin  of  nations,  and 
their  derivation  from  the  Noachitic  stem,  according  to  the 
table  in  the  tenth  of  Genesis. 

The  Second  Part  of  the  work  was  immediately  after  put  to 
press,  and  appeared  in  the  following  year,  under  the  title 
'  Canaan,'  expressing  its  relation  to  the  settlements  of  the 
descendents  of  Canaan,  and  the  vestiges  of  their  wanderings 
and  colonics,  throughout  the  world. 

The  work  thus  completed  had  scarcely  had  time  to  be- 
come known  to  the  learned  world,  before  it  obtained  for  its 
author  an  extraordinary  degree  of  fame  and  admiration.* 
The  subjects  were  comparatively  new,  at  least  in  the  extent 
to  which  he  had  carried  his  investigations.  The  treatment 
of  them  was  ingenious.  The  arrangement  was  perspicuous 
and  convenient.  And  above  all,  the  mass  of  learning  brought 
to  bear  upon  every  point  in  the  least  connected  with  the  ob- 
ject of  the  work  was  almost  incredibly  great.  Erudition  was 
at  that  period  more  in  vogue  than  originality  ;  and  research, 
not  invention  or  discovery,  was  considered  the  proof  of  in- 
telligence. Accordingly  Boon  art,  who  seemed  to  have  read 
every  thing  that  had  been  written  on  subjects  which  he  dis- 
cussed, (r)  and  to  have  remembered  all  that  he  had  read,  was 
acknowledged  as  a  genius  of  the  first  class,  and  took  his  sta- 


1681,  complain  of  'Infinita  94)«x,MaTat  *  in  that  of  Caen: — to  the  rea- 
sonableness of  which  complaint  I  myself  can  testify. 

*'  Its  character  and  effects  are  well  illustrated  by  an  anecdote  told  by 
IIuET  of  himself,  which  shows  that  in  all  human  probability,  we  are  in* 
debted  for  the  benefit  of  his  learned  labours,  to  Bochart.  "  I  was  in- 
vited to  resume  the  pursuits  of  general  literature  and  antiquities,  by  the 
Sacred  Geography  of  Samukl  Bochart,  which  then  began  to  be  pub- 
lished at  Caen.  By  this  rich  store  of  Hebrew  and  Greek  literature,  I 
was  not  only  rendered  sensible  of  my  own  poverty,  but  was  made 
ashamed  of  it;  so  that  I  adopted  the  resolution  to  abstain  from  all  other 
studies  until  I  might  be  reckoned  not  uninformed  in  these."  Comm. 
de  Vita.  Lib.  i.  Aikin's  Mem.  i-  31. 

(r)  See  note  (&)• 


SAMUEL  BOCHA&i.  i^^i 

tion,  almost  immediately,  and  without  dispute,  next  the  Scah- 
OERS,  Saumaise,  and  the  elder  Vossius.  (s) 

Of  course,  any  reluctance  to  expose  his  productions  to  the 
judgment  of  the  world  that  our  author  might  have  previously 
felt,  was  now  completely  overcome  ;  and  he  was  inspirited 
to  proceed  with  alacrity  in  the  arrangement  of  his  collections 
respecting  the  natural  history  of  the  Bible,  preparatory  to 
their  publication  as  a  connected  work. 

While  engaged  in  this,  he  received  a  flattering  proof  of  the 
degree  of  estimation  which  he  had  obtained  even  among 
foreigners,  in  a  correspondence  which  he  had  in  1650  with 
MoRLEY,  one  of  the  chaplains  of  Charles  II.,  at  that  time  an 
exile  from  his  throne.  That  divine,  who  was  high  in  the  con- 
fidence of  his  king,  and  at  the  Restoration  v/as  rewarded  for  his 
fidelity,  and  his  share  in  that  event,  with  the  Bishopric  of  Win- 
chester, thought  fit  to  consult  our  author  as  to  the  best  method 
of  reconciling  the  religious  differences  between  the  contending 
civil  parties.     The  answer  is  a  long  and  able  letter,  [t)  writ- 


(s)  As  an  instance  of  this,  it  appears  from  a  letter  of  his  to  Saumaise. 
dated  1646,  that  even  before  the  Second  Part  of  his  work  had  yet  appear- 
ed, he  had  been  invited  with  some  earnestness  by  that  great  man,  to  accept 
of  a  situation  in  the  same  university  with  himself.  On  consultation  with 
his  friends,  and  examination  of  his  present  engagements,  Bochart  de- 
clined the  offer.  But  coming,  as  it  did,  from  a  foreign  country,  from 
one  of  the  most  celebrated  seats  of  learning  then  in  Europe  (the  Uni- 
versity of  Leyden)  and  more  especially  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  most  eminent  scholar  of  his  time,  it  must  be  allowed  to  have  been 
no  trifling  honour.  Boch.  Ep.  in  0pp.  ni.  1161.  A  letter  of  Sarrau, 
the  Parisian  counsellor,  to  Saumaise  (already  quoted  in  note  a  )  dated 
March  15,  1645,  speaks  of  the  Phaleg  as  "  Geographiae  Sacrae  illustris 
et  nova  tractatio,"  and  goes  on  "  majus  nostro  testimonium  habetab 
Amplissimo  Bignonio  (Jerome  Bignon,  Avocat-general  de  France,  one 
of  the  most  learned  and  accomplished  men  of  his  age)  qui  hodie  mihi 
affirmavit,  Scaligerum,  Drusiuji,  Fullerum,  prae  hoc  nostro  ineptire." 
BiGNON  had  himself  written  a  Descripi'to  Terrae  Sanctae,  which  obtained 
some  celebrity  ;  and  of  course  was  qualified  to  pass  an  opinion  on  the 
subject. 

{I)  "  Viro  amplissimo  D.  Morley,  Regis  Angliae  Sacellano,  S.  Bo. 
CHARTDS  S.  D.  1.  De  Presbyteratu  et  Episcopatu ;  n,  De  Provocatione  a 
judiciis  Ecclesiastcis ;  iii.  De  Jure  ac  Potestate  Regum.  Cedomi.  4  Non . 
Mart,  1650— Opp.  Tom.  iii.  988—1023.    This  letter  has  given  occasjojj 

16 


122  MEMOIRS  Of 

ten  with  much  caution  ;  and,  making  allowances  for  the  pe- 
culiar opinions  of  the  writer,  much  judgment  and  sound  wis- 
dom. The  claims  of  Presbyteiy  and  Episcopacy  to  a  divine 
right  and  exclusive  obligation  : — the  extent  and  limits  of  the 
rights  of  magistrates  to  interfere  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  ; — 
and  the  divine  origin  of  the  kingly  power,  with  its  claims  to 
passive  obedience  ;  and  those  of  the  subject,  on  the  contrary, 
to  a  right  of  resistance  and  self-defence,  were  the  subjects 


to  some  curious  blunders.  Spizelius  has  given  its  title  in  one  page 
(Inf.  Lit.  p.  922)  and  in  the  next,  quoting  a  letter  of  Sarrau,  in  which  it 
is  mentioned  by  its  subject,  laments  that  it  has  never  been  made  public, 
(p.  923)  and  then  again,  in  the  errata,  corrects  himself  by  referring  to  a 
mere  re-impression,  asif  it  had  then  first  appeared.  Bayle  (Bochart. 
note  C.)  points  out  the  inaccuracy  of  Spizelius  in  the  second  pas- 
sage, and  is  himself  corrected  by  his  translators  (ed.  Lond,  1735.  ii.  41.) 
with  a  reference  to  the  Errata;  while  both  have  overlooked  the  first 
passage  in  p.  922.  Bayle's  description  of  this  letter  as  about  *  The  au- 
thority of  Kings  and  the  institution  of  Bishops  and  Priests  '  is  very  incor- 
rect, while  that  of  Sarrau,  as  quoted  by  Spizelius,  p.  923,  '  de  nupero 
Regicidio  Anglican©,'  is  still  worse.  This  letter  was  published  at  Paris 
in  1650,  in  18mo.,  and  an  edition,  which  the  paper  and  typography  show 
to  belong  to  London,  in  32mo.,  without  place  or  date,  bears  the  imprint, 
'juxta  exemplar  impressum  Parisiis,  1650.'*  No  doubt  it  was  expected 
to  have  influence  ;  in  France,  in  favour  of  tha  tottering  cause  of  the 
Huguenots,  by  proving  their  moderation  and  their  loyal  submission'to 
*  the  powers  that  be,' — in  England,  by  instilling  moderate  views  into 
both  contending  parties,  and  arousing  the  nation  to  a  sense  of  the 
criminality  of  the  murder  of  their  King.  It  was  also  reprinted  at  the 
end  of  the  Frankfort  edition  of  the  Geographia  Sacra,  in  4to.,  1681. 

A  letter  of  very  similar  purport  to  this  of  Bochart,  addressed  by  his 
colleague  Du  Bosc  to  Brevint,  another  of  the  chaplains  of  Charles  IL, 
and  containing  opinions  very  much  resembling  those  of  our  author, 
may  be  found  in  Le  Vie  du  P.  du  Bosc,  par  P.  Le  Gendre,  Rotterdam, 
1694,  p.  18—29. 

A  correspondence  of  the  same  kind  was  held  about  1680  by  Comp- 
TON,  Bishop  of  London,  with  Claude,  Le  Moyme,  and  some  other  dis- 
tinguished French  Protestant  divines. 


*  It  is  possible,  but,  I  think,  not  probable,  that  this  edition  is  referred 
to  by  Spizelius  (p.  922.)  when  he  says  "  Paris,  et  Lugd.  Bat.  exctisa 
An.  1650."  I  rather  think  he  speaks  of  one  edition,  published  in  the 
two  cities  simultaneous! v,  as  was  at  that  time  not  uncommon. 


:4' 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  l^*S 

which  were  submitted  to  his  consideration.  Taking  into 
view  his  situation  as  an  eminent  member  of  a  Presbyterian 
body,  placed  among  men  who  were  anxiously  watching  for 
any  thing  which  might  involve  him  in  trouble,  and  accelerate 
the  ruin  of  his  church  ;  it  must  be  confessed  that  it  required  no 
small  share  of  prudence  and  ingenuity  so  to  frame  his  reply 
as,  without  displeasing  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  to  give  his  true 
opinions,  and  yet  bring  no  difficulties  on  himself  by  giving  of- 
fence either  to  his  brethren,  or  to  their  watchful  adversaries. 
All  this  appears  in  his  Epistle.  He  carefully  holds  the  ba- 
lance of  the  contending  parties,  never  suffering  an  undue  pre- 
dominance in  either  scale,  and  at  no  time  displaying  any  un- 
wary preference  of  any  disputed  point.  He  decides  between 
Episcopacy  and  Presbytery  by  denying  the  exclusive  claims 
of  either,  and  maintaining  that  circumstances  must  decide  the 
choice  of  either  for  an  establishment ;  hinting  at  the  same  time, 
that  in  England  both  might  be  allowed  to  exist,  respectively 
prevailing  in  different  sections  of  the  country  as  the  prevalent 
opinions  differed.  On  the  power  of  magistrates  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal matters,  he  merely  draws  a  distinction  between  the  inter- 
nal government  of  the  church — that  which  relates  to  spiritual 
truth  and  the  salvation  of  souls,  and  its  external  administra- 
tion, or  that  which  settles  its  form,  provides  for  its  mainte- 
nance, enforces  its  regulations,  &c. :  and  then  quotes  the  re- 
corded decisions  of  several  Synods  of  the  Reformed  Church  in 
France  in  favour  of  a  joint  government  of  the  church  amd  state 
in  the  latter.  On  the  right  of  kings  to  the  passive  obedience 
of  their  people  he  is  much  fuller  than  on  the  other  points,  and 
maintains  it  with  much  warmth  of  expression  and  multiplicity 
of  argument.  It  was  the  interest  of  his  church  that  her 
opinions  on  this  point  should  be  known  to  be  entirely  loyal, 
and  evidently  his  own  inclination  accorded  with  that  interest. 
In  all  this  letter,  there  are  much  fewer  traces  of  the  multi- 
farious reading  of  the  author  than  in  any  of  his  other  writings. 
His  language  is  more  select  and  exact.  His  train  of  argu- 
ment is  neater  and  closer  than  usual.  I  have  dwelt  the 
longer  on  it,  because,  although  insignificant  in  bulk,  and  prin- 
^ipally  occupied  on  subjects  of  trans^nt  interest,  it  seems  fo 


1^  ilEMOIRS  OF 

me  better  calculated  than  any  of  his  other  productions  to  do 
him  credit  as  an  original  thinker,  and  wise  and  judicious  man. 

In  a  letter  written  about  this  time  to  Saumaise,  Bochart 
maintains  the  same  opinions  ;  and  while  he  expresses  his  satis- 
faction with  the  work  of  that  celebrated  writer  entitled  *  Pro 
Defensione  Regis  Angliae,'  he  manifests  his  own  superior 
judgment,  by  declaring  his  disposition  to  acquit  the  English 
Presbyterians  of  any  deliberate  intention  to  destroy  the  king, 
and  to  consider  them  rather  as  deceived  and  hurried  on,  against 
their  better  intentions,  by  the  duplicity  and  violence  of  the 
Independents,  (u) 

The  year  1652  was  the  era  of  an  occurrence  of  lio  small 
importance  in  the  quiet  and  sedentary  life  of  such  a  laborious 
student  as  Bochart.  This  Was  no  less  than  a  journey  through 
Holland  and  Denmark,  to  the  capital  of  Sweden,  in  company 
with  HuETj  afterward  the  celebrated  Bishop  of  Avranches. 
As  early  as  1650  the  capricious  and  pedantic  Christina,  Queen 
of  Sweden,  whose  hobby  was  at  that  time  the  higher  branches 
of  classic  erudition,  had,  at  the  instigation  of  her  counsellors 
Descartes  and  Saumaise,  and  her  tutor  Vossius,  shown 
marks  of  singular  respect  to  our  author.  Letters  approv- 
ing of  his  works,  and  exciting  him  to  continue  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  remainder  for  the  pubhc,  and  others  inviting 
him  to  visit  the  royal  court,  were  written  by  her  learned 
friends  at  her  command.  These  producing  nothing  but  thanks 
and  flattery  from  Bochart,  at  last  Christina  sent  an  urgent 
letter  written  with  her  own  hand,  intreating  him  to  come 
without  delay  ;  and  at  the  same  time  caused  Huet,  then  rising 
into  fame  as  a  man  of  extensive  learning,  to  be  invited  to  ac- 
company him.  The  measure  was  effectual.  Such  powerful 
solicitations  could  not  be  withstood.  The  good  pleasure  of  a 
queen  was  not  to  be  resisted,  nor  her  favour  to  be  trifled  with. 
"  In  consequence  of  these  allurements,"  says  Huet,  (v)  speak- 
ing of  Bochart,  "  though  fettered  by  the  public  ministry  of  his 


(u)  Ep.  ad  Salmasium,  17  Mali,  1650-    0pp.  Tom.  ni.  c.  1161.  s. 

(if)  Oommentaria  de  Vita  sUa, Lib.  n.— ^Aikin's  Memoirs  of  Hnet.  1. 120- 


SAMUEL  EOCHART.  125 

religion,  and  the  attractions  of  a  very  aftectionate  family,  and 
habituated  to  the  pleasures  of  study  and  tranquil  leisure,  he 
postponed  every  consideration  to  the  will  of  the  Queen,  and 
was  not  to  be  deterred,  either  by  the  length  of  the  journey, 
the  loss  of  time,  or  the  inconvenience  to  his  affairs."  Yet 
these  sacrifices  were  not  repaid.  The  usual  fate  of  applicants 
at  courts  was  experienced  by  our  travellers,  and  after  all  their 
relinquishments,  and  all  their  pains,  they  returned  neither 
richer  nor  more  honourable  than  they  went,  and  well  pleased 
to  regain  the  quiet  and  peacefulness  of  their  former  situations. 
An  intercourse  of  some  weeks  in  Holland  with  Saumaise, 
Heinsius,  and  Isaac  Vossius  ; — a  personal  inspection  of 
every  thing  worth  seeing  in  the  principal  cities  of  Holland 
and  Denmark,  and  in  the  capital  of  Sweden ; — and  some 
months'  uninterrupted  use  of  the  valuable  hbrary  collected  by 
the  Queen,  and  especially  of  its  stores  of  Oriental  learning, — 
were  indeed,  no  small  advantages,  and  perhaps  well  purchas- 
ed, even  at  the  cost  of  the  personal  fatigue  and  other  incon- 
veniences which  they  suffered.  But  certainly,  with  respect 
to  its  principal  object,  this  journey  was  an  egregious  failure. 

BouRDELOT,  a  French  physician,  had  made  himself  neces- 
sary to  Christina  by  his  medical  skill  and  perfect  acquaint- 
ance w^ith  the  arts  of  flattery.  At  the  time  of  the  arrival  of 
BocuART  and  Huet  at  her  court,  he  was  the  prime  favourite, 
and  the  direction  of  her  regards  was  under  his  control.  Huet 
shall  give  his  naive  account  of  the  influence  of  this  man  upon 
himself  and  his  learned  fellow-traveller.  "  As  the  Queen  had 
thrown  herself  into  a  state  of  languor  by  her  intense  applica- 
tion to  those  studies,  and  was  occasionally  attacked  by  slight 
fevers,  Bourdelot,  in  the  first  place,  craftily  attending  to  his 
own  consequence  and  reputation,  (zo)  removed  all  books  from 


(w)  He  was  himself  illiterate,  so  far  at  least,  as  regards  those  deeper 
studies  to  which  Christina  had  been  in  the  habit  of  attending.  Yet  there 
is  no  need  to  impute  to  Bourdelot  a  sinister  motive,  as  Huet  has  done^ 
prompted  by  his  affection  for  his  beloved  studies.  The  physician  may  have 
been  sincere  in  his  advice,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  case  render  j< 
very  probable  that  he  was  5=0. 


126  MEMOIRS  01 

her  sight,  and  denounced  certain  danger  to  iier  life  should  she 
persist  in  literary  pursuits.  He  then,  in  private  conversations, 
insinuated  that  a  learned  woman  was  regarded  in  a  ridiculous 
light  by  the  elegant  ladies  of  the  French  court.  And  as  he 
besides  amused  her  with  his  pleasantry  and  jocularity,  he 
gained  so  great  an  ascendancy  over  her  youthful  mind,  that 
she  began  to  lose  all  relish  for  serious  learning.  For  the  dis- 
position of  Christina  was  so  flexible  and  wavering,  that  she 
entirely  depended  upon  the  opinions  of  others,  especially  of 
those  who  had  acquired  her  esteem  by  any  species  of  merit." 
"  And  now,  having  by  the  advice  of  Bourdelot  laid  aside 
her  studies,  and  indulged  in  leisure  and  relaxation,  by  which 
her  health  was  somewhat  amended,  she  declared  herself  not 
only  cured,  but  preserved  from  death  by  his  means  ;  and  from 
this  period  she  gave  so  much  credit  to  this  buffoon,  that  she 
almost  repented  of  having  learned  any  thing.  This  circum- 
stance destroyed  almost  all  the  pleasure  of  our  journey ;  and 
was  the  cause  that  Bochart,  invited  with  so  much  earnest- 
ness as  it  were  from  another  world,  was  not  received  accord- 
ing to  his  merits.  Nor  did  we  doubt  that  this  was  to  be  im- 
puted to  Bourdelot,  who  considered  it  as  his  interest  to 
banish  learned  men  from  court,  lest  his  own  conscious  igno- 
rance should  be  rendered  apparent  by  the  comparison."  (x) 
"  Bochart  was  not  received  according  to  his  merit,"  says 
HuET :  this  is  but  a  faint  representation  of  the  truth.  His 
welcome  amounted  at  most  to  a  free  admission  to  the  royal 
library,  and  a  maintenance,  during  his  residence  at  Stock- 
holm, at  the  Queen's  expense.  It  is  true,  he  was  several  times 
admitted  to  her  presence,  but  the  circumstances  rendered 
these  interviews  so  far  from  honourable,  that,  to  say  the  least, 
they  must  have  covered  him  with  ridicule.     At  one  time,  the 


(x)  Some  allowance  must  be  made  for  Huet's  prejudices.  The 
caprices  of  Christina  may  have  had  as  much  to  do  in  the  dismissal  of  her 
guest,  as  the  intrigues  of  her  Physician.  But  it  was  less  discreditable  to 
himself  and  Bochart,  and  more  comfortable  to  their  feelings,  to  attri- 
bute it  to  the  latter.  Huet  Comm-  de  Vita  sua,  Lib.  ii.  Aikin's 
Mem.  1. 149.  e. 


SAMUEL  BOCHiRT.  127 

Queen  had  appointed  him  a  day  to  hear  him  read  a  part  of 
his  Phaleg.  Bourdelot  prevailed  on  her  to  refuse  the  per- 
formance of  her  engagement,  under  the  plea  of  illness.  On 
another  occasion,  she  pressed  Bochart  to  play  with  her  at 
battledore  and  shuttlecock,  till,  with  all  his  gravity,  he  con- 
sented, threw  aside  his  minister's  cloak,  and  awkwardly  went 
through  a  game,  (t/)  It  is  also  said,  but,  perhaps  without 
foundation,(2:)  that  the  physician  persuaded  Christina  that  Bo- 
chart was  an  excellent  performer  on  the  flute,  though  modesty 
led  him  to  conceal  it ;  and  that  she  absolutely  compelled  the  re- 
luctant minister  to  make  an  attempt  to  play  upon  that  instru- 
ment, with  which  he  was  entirely  unacquainted.  These  were 
not  scenes  well  calculated  to  enhance  the  reputation  of  the 
principal  performer,  or  to  recompense  a  studious  man  for  the 
sacrifice  of  his  literary  leisure,  (a) 


(2/)  Menagiana.  p.  340.     Bayle.  Diet.  art.  BOCHART,  note  D. 

(s)  Bayle  (ubi  supra)  rejects  this  anecdote.  Aikin  (Memoirs  of 
HuET.  I.  83.  s.)  gives  it  as  true,  but  on  what  authority  I  know  not. 

(«)  It  must  be  confessed  that  nothing  of  this  gross  treatment  appears 
in  along  letter  of  Bociv^rt  to  Saujiaise,  dated  from  Stockholm  in  1652. 
On  the  contrary,  in  that  letter  he  speaks  of  changing  his  residence  [to  the 
palace ;  of  having  interviews  with  the  Queen ;  and  of  conversing  with 
her  respecting  Saumaise's  book  pro  Defensione  Regis.  (Ep.  ad  Salmas. 
0pp.  111.  1165.  s.).  But  B.  would  not  have  been  content  with  a  mere 
cursory  notice  of  such  common  civilities,  had  he  possessed  any  better 
grounds  for  boasting  of  his  favourable  receptifti  to  his  old  friend  and 
confidant.  Besides,  the  positive  testimony  of  Huet,  and  the  evident 
chagrin  with  which  he  gives  it,  are  plain  proof  to  the  contrary.  An 
anecdote  told  by  that  writer  proves,  however,  that  Bochart  and  him- 
self were  admitted  to  so7ne  intimacy  with  Christina ;  and,  what  is  more, 
shows  that  the  use  they  made  of  that  intimacy  was  so  indiscreet  as  fully 
to  justify  her  in  shortening  it.  "  In  a  copy  of  verses,  composed  in  French, 
I  had  with  some  keenness  satirized  the  manners  of  the  Swedes,  When 
I  recited  these  to  Bochart,  he  wrote  them  out,  and  carried  them  to  the 
dueen,  to  whom  he  read  them  as  a  piece  of  amusing  pleasantry.  She  was 
entertained  by  the  verses,  but  observed  that  her  countrymen  would  by  no 
means  approve  of  an  attempt  to  ridicule  them ;  and  therefore  it  would 
be  better  to  keep  them  secret."  (Huet.  Comm.  de  Vit.  Lib.  11.  Aikin's 
Mem.  1. 158.  s.)  Aikin's  remark  on  this  passage  is  pertinent: — "  The 
Queen  appears  in  this  instance  to  have  been  more  prudent  than  the  two 


IJ^  MEMOIRS  OF 

The  learned  world,  however,  have  cause  to  rejoice  at  this 
unlucky  visit.  During  the  researches  of  our  travellers  in  the 
library  at  Stockholm,  Huet  found  a  manuscript  of  some  parts 
of  the  Commentaries  of  Origen  upon  St.  Matthew,  and  of 
his  work  on  Prayer  ;  and,  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of  Bo- 
chart,  consented  to  transcribe  it,  and  undertake  its  publica- 
tion.(6)  To  this  we  owe  his  learned  and  valuable  Origeniana, 
and  the  excellent  edition  of  all  the  remains  of  Origen*s  exe- 
getical  performances  to  which  it  is  prefixed.  Boo  hart  him- 
self also  employed  his  time  very  profitably  in  the  acquisition 
of  Oriental  learning,  with  which  he  afterwards  enriched  his 

HiEROZOICON.  (c) 

The  time  of  Bochart's  return  to  Caen  is  not  recorded  ; 
but  it  is  certain  that  he  staid  longer  than  Huet,  since  the  lat- 
ter took  with  him  as  a  travelling  companion  a  young  man  of 
noble  family,  who  had  been  intrusted  to  the  tutelage  of  Bo- 
CHART ;  but,  tired  of  his  tutor's  long  stay  in  a  country  whose 
manners  and  chmate  were  disagreeable  to  him,  gladly  placed 
himself  under  the  charge  of  Huet,  (d)      During  his  absence 


Frenchmen,  who  presumed  not  a  little  on  her  preference  of  foreigners, 
when  they  expected  to  entertain  her  with  a  satire  on  her  own  country- 
men. French  petulance  has  seldom  appeared  in  more  striking  colours." 
("Mem.  of  Huet.  Note.  i.  p.  183.)  This  piece  of  thoughtless  levity 
was  certainly  not  worthy  of  the  author  of  the  letter  to  Morlev. 

(6)  Huet.  Coram,  de  Vita  sua,  Lib.  ii.  Aikin's  Mem.  of  Huet,  i.  152. 
MoRiN.  de  Clar.  Bociiart.  p.  6. 

(c)  He  had  referred  to  this  object  as  one  reason  for  his  accepting 
the  invitation  of  Christina,  in  a  letter  to  Vossius,  some  time  before  the 
commencement  of  his  journey.  (Ep.  ad  Voss.  0pp.  iii.  1 163.  s.).  The 
library  of  Christina  had  been  enriched  with  the  Oriental  collection  of 
Gaulmix,  at  that  time  perhaps  the  best  in  Europe.  Very  likely,  to 
the  use  made  of  its  stores  by  Bochart  during  his  Swedish  visit,  we  owe 
the  peculiar  richness  of  his  Hierozoicon  in  Oriental  criticism  and  quota- 
tions. 

(d)  This  was  Peter  Cahaignes  de  Fiervillc,  of  Caen,  of  a  family  dis= 
tinguished  both  for  learning  and  nobility.    His  being  entrusted  to  Bo- 
chart is  no  small  evidence  of  the  reputation  of  the  latter  for  general 
accomplishments  as  well  as  mere  erudition.    Huet,  Coram.  Lib.  i.  ^.  n 
.^ikin's  Mem.  of  Huet.  i.  159.  comp.  p.  30, 8P, 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  129 

on  this  journey,  our  author  received  a  flattering  testimony  of 
the  estimation  in  which  he  was  held  at  home,  by  the  election 
of  himself  and  the  companion  of  his  travels  to  be  associates 
of  a  literary  society  then  just  formed  at  Caen,  comprising  no 
small  proportion  of  the  talents  and  learning  of  France.  (/) 
Of  this  society  he  continued  an  active  and  eminent  member, 
honoured  and  beloved  by  his  associates,  and  industriously  en- 
gaged in  the  prosecution  of  their  common  objects,  till  the 
very  hour  of  his  death,  which  happened  at  one  of  their  in- 
formal meetings,  {g) 

When  at  length  he  had  returned  and  settled  in  his  ordinary 
routine  of  employment,  Bochart  recommenced  the  prepara- 
tion of  his  HiERozoicoN  for  the  press  with  renewed  ardour, 
deriving  additional  encouragement  to  diligence  from  the  con- 
siderable augmentation  which  his  materials  had  received  from 
his  Oriental  studies  while  in  Stockholm.  But  he  was  hot 
long  permitted  to  devote  himself  to  this  favourite  occupation  : 
a  series  of  untoward  events  occurred,  which  distracted  his  at- 
tention, Rn&  retarded  almost  half  a  score  of  years  the  com- 
pletion of  his  work,  {h) 

The  first  of  these  interruptions  was  his  election  to  repre- 
sent the  Reformed  churches  of  Normandy  in  a  national  synod 
held  at  Loudun.  (i)     The  perilous  aspect  of  the  times,  and 


(/)  The  provincial  town  of  Caen  contained  at  that  time  a  surpris- 
ingly large  proportion  of  men  eminent  in  one  or  other  department  of 
learning.  See  an  enumeration  of  those  who  constituted  the  Society 
or  '  Academy  '  referred  to  in  the  text,  with  some  account  of  their  lives 
and  literary  characters,  in  Huetii  Coram,  de  Vita  sua,  Lib.  iii.  (Aikis's 
Memoirs  of  Huet.  i.  207.)  and  in  Aikin's  Notes  (i.  295.  ss.). 

(g)  Huet.  Comm.  de  Vit.  sua.  Lib.  iv.     (Aikin's  Mem.  ii.  40.) 

(A)  It  was  more  than  half  transcribed  July  10, 1659  ;  and  Bochart  then 
wrote  to  Vossius,  at  that  time  in  Holland,  requesting  him  to  negotiate 
with  some  printer  in  that  country  for  the  publication  of  the  work.  Ep. 
ad  Voss.  0pp.  Tom.  iii.  c.  862. 

(i)  It  assembled  on  the  10th  of  November,  1659,  and  remained  ex- 
actly two  months  in  session,  closing  on  the  10th  of  Jan.  1660.  This 
was  the  last  General  Synod  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  France  that 
was  permitted  to  assemble.  Benoit  Hist,  de  I'Edit  de  Nantes,  Tom. 
III.  p.  36(5.  ss.    Quick's  Synodicon.  ir.  501 — 596. 

17 


130  MEMOIKiJ  Ot 

numerous  difficulties  and  dangers  with  which  those  ot  his^ 
communion  were  surrounded,  rendered  this  station  pecuHarly 
important  and  delicate  at  that  period.  According  to  his  bio- 
grapher, BocHART  discharged  its  functions  with  uncommon 
prudence  and  dexterity  in  the  transaction  of  business,  (A-)  and 
returned  with  no  inconsiderable  increase  of  reputation. 

Not  long  after  his  release  from  this  engagement,  he  was 
brought  into  still  more  unpleasant  employment  by  the  assaults 
of  the  Jesuit,  De  la  Barre,  upon  his  church.  The  Second 
National  Synod  of  Charenton,  held  in  1631,  had  passed  a  de- 
cree admitting  membersof  the  Lutheran  Church  to  communion 
with  the  Reformed  churches  in  France,  if  desiring,  upon  a 
mere  attestation  of  their  belief  in  the  Articles  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  (/)  At  the  time,  this  decree  had  given  much  oc- 
casion of  remark  to  the  advocates  of  the  Church  of  Rome  ; 
some  regarding  it  with  a  jealous  eye,  while  others  considered  it 
as  indicative  of  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Protestants  to  co- 
alesce with  the  Church  of  Rome,  inasmuch  as  the  admission  of 
persons  maintaining  the  doctrines  of  consubstantiation  to  com- 
munion seemed  a  considerable  approach  towards  agreement 
with  the  advocates  of  f?ansubstantiation.  (m)  But  now  this 
matter  was  revived  by  La  Barre  with  an  entirely  difterent  in- 
tention. He  laid  hold  of  it  as  a  proof  of  the  rancorous  enmity 
to  the  Church  of  Rome  entertained  by  the  Reformed,  who 
would  admit  to  their  communion  foreign  religionists  differing 
from  themselves  respecting  very  important  articles  of  faith, 
and  yet  refused  that  mark  of  brotherly  kindness  to  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  established  religion  of  their  couutry.  His  ob- 
ject was,  avowedly,  to  excite  the  indignation  of  the  latter 


(k)  The  only  mention  of  him  in  the  Acts  of  the  Syuod,  is  as  chairman 
of  a  Committee  appointed  to  see  that  all  editions  of  the  Geneva  Transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  of  the  Metrical  Version  of  the  Psalms,  of  the  Liturgy, 
and  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  were  printed  conformably  to  the  standard 
copies.    Quick's  Synodicon.  ii.  552. 

0)  Quick's  Synodicon,  n.  297. 

{m)  Benoit.  Hist,  de  L'Ed.  de  Nantz.  Tom.  n.  p.  524.  Bossuet.  Hist 
des  Variat.  des  Prot.  ii.  328.  ss. 


SAMU£L  BOCHAKT.  131 

against  the  Protestants,  and  so  to  procure  a  reduction  of  their 
privileges.  Bochart  undertook  to  counteract  this  effect,  by 
refuting  the  Jesuit,  and  showing  the  entire  dissimilarity  of 
the  cases  which  he  Iiad  so  invidiously  placed  in  apposition. 
This,  according  to  Morin,  (n)  he  did  both  in  words  and  writ- 
ing. If  he  published  any  thing  upon  the  subject,(o)  it  must  have 
been  of  little  magnitude,  and  transient  interest ;  as  not  even 
the  title  has  been  handed  down.  Yet  it  must  have  caused 
a  material  interruption  to  his  studies,  since,  although  his  bio- 
grapher assures  us  he  found  it  an  easy  task,  and  obtained 
a  cheap  victory  over  his  antagonist,  yet,  as  the  same  writer 
shrewdly  observes,  "Bochart  did  not  know  how  treat  a 
theological  topic  cursorily,  but  gave  the  utmost  completeness 
to  his  discussion  of  every  subject  which  he  undertook,  and  be- 
stowed all  his  powers  upon  it,  whatever  might  be  its  nature." 
Bochart  had  again  resumed  his  wonted  studies,  and  had 
actually  commenced  the  publication  of  his  Hierozoicon  in 
London,  and  was  engaged  in  the  laborious  work  of  correcting 
the  press,  and  making  out  the  full  indices  with  which  it  is  ac- 
companied, (p)  when  another,  and  still  greater  hindrance  in- 


(n)  MoRiNtJs  de  Clar.  Boch.  p.  7. 

(o)  Bayle  says  expressly  "he  published  a.  piece  in  1661  against  the 
Jesuit  La  Barre."  But  as  I  have  learned  not  to  put  implicit  confidence 
in  the  accuracy  of  Bayle,  I  think  it  probable  he  may  have  misunder- 
stood Morin,  and  carelessly  said  this  on  his  authority. 

(p)  There  are  no  less  than  seven,  more  than  usually  full  and  accu- 
rate, indices.  The  distance  of  Bochart  from  the  place  at  which  his 
work  was  printing,  obliged  his  bookseller  to  send  a  number  of  proof 
sheets  at  once,  which  required  immediate  attention,  that  so  large  a 
quantity  of  type  might  not  be  kept  out  of  use.  It  is  easy  to  conceive 
how  greatly  such  occasional  influxes  of  employment,  demanding  much 
care  and  considerable  time,  must  interfere  with  his  heavy  stated  duties. 
Morin  (ubi  supra,  p.  7)  impliedly  attributes  the  whole  labour  of  correc- 
tion to  Bochart  ;  but  B.  himself,  in  the  end  of  his  Preface,  says  that  the 
London  publisher  provided  correctors  of  the  press  ;  complaining,  how- 
ever, that  they  had  rendered  him  much  more  disservice  than  assistance. 
He  promises  a  statement  of  this  from  the  corrector  himself,  which  ought 
to  follow  on  the  next  page,  but  in  the  Leyden  edition  of  1712,  is  want- 
ing, that  page  being  blank,  although  the  catchword  *  Eru-'  (probably 


I3'2  MEMOIRS  OF 

tervenecl.  One  of  his  three  colleagues,  M.  Le  Couteur,  was 
a  clergyman  of  the  Isle  of  Jersey,  who  had  gone  into  exile  on 
the  dethronement  of  his  king.  On  the  Restoration,  his 
fidelity  was  rewarded  with  the  Deanery  of  his  native  Isle, 
and  in  the  close  of  the  year  1661  he  vacated  his  place  in 
Caen  to  take  possession  of  his  new  dignity.  This  threw  an 
additional  portion  of  pastoral  duty  upon  Bochart  at  a  time 
when  it  was  peculiarly  inconvenient.  To  relieve  himself  from 
this  burthen,  he  persuaded  Morin,  then  pleasantly  settled  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  city,  to  assume  the  share  of  duty  relinquish- 
ed by  Le  Couteur,  performing  the  public  services  of  one 
Sunday,  and  two  week-day  evening  lectures,  in  the  month. 
But  scarcely  had  this  arrangement  been  effected,  when  the 
two  remaining  colleagues  of  Bochart  were  suddenly  remov- 
ed from  their  stations ;  the  eldest,  Beaumont,  (the  Senior 
Pastor  of  the  church)  by  death ;  the  other,  the  celebrated  Du 
Bosc,  by  banishment,  procured  for  him  by  the  malicious  ac- 
cusations of  those  who  rejoiced  to  wound  his  religion  in  his 
person,  (q)  Thus  left  alone  in  the  pastoral  charge,  our  au- 
thor, with  some  difficulty,  procured  the  dismission  of  Morin 
from  his  former  cure,  and  obtained  him  for  his  colleague  at 
Caen.  Even  then,  the  important  duties  of  their  station  re- 
quired the  whole  of  their  united  labours,  (r)  and  compelled 


the  beginning  of  the  usual  caption  of  an  advertisement,  'Erudite  Lee 
tori')  occurs  on  the  bottom  of  the  one  immediately  preceding. 

(q)  He  was  banished  to  Cahors,  April  2,  1664,  being  accused  of 
speaking  injuriously  of  the  Romish  religion,  by  an  apostate  Protestant 
surnamed  Pommier.     Vie  de  P.  du  Bosc.  p.  32. 

(r)  In  a  letter  dated  Sept.  15,  1664,  which  manifests  both  the  atten- 
tion  of  our  author  to  the  general  affairs  of  his  congregation,  and  his  af- 
fectionate solicitude  for  his  valuable  colleague,  he  declares :  "  Notre 
pauvre  Eglise  seroit  en  effet  ruin^e  si  on  vous  mettoit  ailleurs:  car  vous 
savez  que  je  me  vieillis,  et  ai  bien  encore  le  meme  courage,  mais  non 
pas  les  meraes  forces  qu'  autrefois;  et  ne  pourrois  gueres  longtems 
subsister  dans  le  travail  et  chagrin  que  j'ai,  qui  me  ruine  le  corps  et  1'- 
esprit.  Ce  n'cst  pas  que  je  n'aie  beaucoup  de  soulagemcnt  de  M. 
Morin,  qui  est  un  homme  fort  actif ;  mais  tant  y  a  que  nous  ne  sommes 
que  nous  deux,  et  qu'il   n'y  a  plus  personne  qui  nous  .<=Pcoure :  et  en 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  133 

BocHART  tor  a  period  to  relinquish  all  attention  to  his  literary- 
pursuits,  (s) 

A  short  time  sufficed  to  demonstrate  the  innocence  of  Du 
Bosc,  and  procure  a  repeal  of  his  sentence,  with  permission 
to  resume  his  former  situation,  (t)  He  was  triumphantly  re- 
ceived by  his  people  and  his  brethren  in  the  ministry,  (u)  and 
by  no  one,  probably,  with  joy  greater  than  that  of  our  author, 
who,  besides  participating  in  the  common  causes  of  exultation, 
was  thus  released  from  his  extraordinary  avocations,  and  en- 


Petat  ou  est  notre  Eglise,  et  toute  notre  Province,  nous  avons  deux  fois 
plus  d'affaires  qu'a  I'ordinaire."  Le  Gentil  Vie  de  P.  du  Bosc. 
p.  378.  s. 

(s)  MoRiN  expressly  states  the  imprisonment  of  Du  Bosc  as  one  ob- 
stacle to  Bochart's  attention  to  his  Hierozoicon ;  and  his  opportunities 
of  knowing  the  truth  were  too  great  to  allow  a  suspicion  of  inaccuracy. 
Otherwise,  as  the  Dedication  of  the  work  bears  date  March  1663,  a 
whole  year  before  that  event,  and  as  the  title  of  the  book  is  dated 
1664,  which  would  scarcely  allow  any  time  for  attention  to  it  after  the 
liberation  of  Du  Bosc,  it  seems  probable  that  the  work  was  completed 
before  Bochart  was  deprived  of  the  assistance  of  his  colleagues. 
Probably  the  dedication  was  written  soon  after  the  work  was  put  to 
press;  and  when  Bochart's  attention  to  the  correction  of  the  press  was 
interrupted,  his  place  was  supplied  by  the  correctors  whom  he  mentions 
in  his  Preface.  This  last  circumstance,  too.  may  perhaps  account  for  the 
incorrectness  in  this  edition  complained  of  by  Dorn,  who  says  it  was 
printed  "  splendide  satis,  sed  admodum  vitiose.'    Bibl.  Theol.  p.  167. 

(t)  By  a  Lettre  de  Cachet  dated  Oct.  15,  1664.— Vie  de  P.  du  Bosc. 
p.  41.  s. 

(tt)  One  method  of  demonstrating  this  joy  was  so  singular,  that  al- 
though irrelevant,  I  cannot  pass  it  by.  There  was  a  gentleman  in  the 
province,  who,  although  himself  of  the  Romish  religion,  and  withal  a 
very  irregular  liver,  openly  professed  a  very  great  respect  for  the  able 
pastors  of  the  Reformed  persuasion,  and  especially  for  M.  Du  Bosc. 
On  the  evening  of  his  return  this  gentleman  prepared  a  sumptuous  sup- 
per, and  inviting  two  Franciscan  friars  notorious  for  their  attachment 
to  the  bottle,  plied  them  so  freely  as  to  cause  the  death  of  one  of  them 
upon  the  spot !  The  next  morning  he  called  on  Du  Bosc,  and  de- 
clared that  he  had  thought  it  his  duty  to  sacrifice  a  monk  to  the  public 
joy ;  and  that  although  a  Jesuit  would  have  been  a  much  more  suitable 
victim,  he  hoped  his  offering  would  not  be  unacceptable,  because  it  was 
■yrrerdi/  ft,  Cordelier  !    Vie  de  P.  Du  Bosc.  p.  44.  p. 


134  MEMOIRS  01 

abled  to  resume  his  literary  labour,  and  very  speedily  com- 
plete the  publication  of  his  *  opus  magnum,'  the  Hierozoicon. 
The  work  thus  ushered  into  the  world  placed  the  key-stone 
to  the  reputation  of  its  author,  and  is  indeed  his  masterpiece. 
For  varied  learning,  general  interest,  and  practical  utility  in 
sacred  criticism,  it  excels  its  predecessor  as  much  as  it  does 
in  magnitude.     As  the  expectations  of  the  learned  had  already 
been  excited,  and  kept,  by  the  circumstances  which  retarded 
its  appearance,  a  considerable  time  in  suspense,  it  created  less 
sensation  than  the  Phaleg  ;  but  its  permanent  popularity  has 
been  even  greater  than  that  of  the  latter,  (w)     Yet  even  this 
did  not  satisfy  Bochart's  desire  of  usefulness.    He  regarded 
it  merely  as  the  second  part  of  a  design  of  which  the  *  Sacred 
Geography '  formed  the  first,  and  the  third  was  to  consist  of 
a  treatise  on  the  Plants  and  Gems  of  Scripture,  probably  of 
equal  magnitude  ;  at  any  rate  of  an  equal  extent  of  research 
and  variety  of  erudition.     The  plan  was  to  be  completed  by 
a  dissertation  on  the  *  Terrestrial  Paradise,'  for  which  he  had 
already  prepared  the  materials,  and  even  put  them  into  some 
kind  of  order,  although  not  such  as  would  fit  them  for  publi- 
cation.    But  these  plans  were  never  to  be  completed.     We 
know  of  their  existence  only  by  some  scattered  intimations, 
and  by  some  disjointed  and  unfinished  fragments  preserved 
for  us  by  the  diligence  of  his  biographer  and  the  editors 
of  his  collected  works. 

It  had  pleased  God  to  cast  the  lot  of  Bochart  in  troublous 
times;  and  although  he  accomplished  very  much  notwith- 
standing their  interference  with  his  studies,  yet  the  rapid  in- 
crease of  difficulties  towards  the  close  of  his  life  prevented  his 
completing  all  that  he  had  designed  to  do.  The  machina- 
tions of  the  Romish  clergy  for  the  destruction  of  the  Protest- 
ant cause  in  France  grew  every  day  more  numerous,  more  ex- 
tensive, and  more  successful.     New  pretexts  were  daily  in- 


(u))  It  was  published  in  folio,  with  the  imprint,  '  London,  1664.'  The 
Oriental  characters  throughout  the  work  were  printed  with  the  type? 
cast  for  ihp  London  Polyglot 


SAMUEL  BOOHAKT.  Vdi) 

vented  for  intringement  on  the  stipulated  immunities  of  the 
Reformed,  and  the  most  artful  measures  adopted  to  prepare 
the  way  for  a  total  annihilation  of  their  religious  liberties.  In 
such  a  crisis,  it  was  the  plain  duty  of  every  member  of  that 
communion  to  devote  all  his  influence  and  talents  to  the  sup- 
port of  its  sinking  cause,  and  to  consider  himself  as  set  apart 
for  the  one  object  of  the  maintenance  of  religious  liberty  and 
a  true  and  uncorrupted  faith. 

Almost  the  last  labour  of  our  author's  life  was  devoted  to 
this  cause.     One  favourite  mode  of  oppressing  the  Reformed 
adopted  by  the  Roniish  clergy,  w^as,  to  deprive  them  of  their 
churches  on  false  pretences.     The  Edict  of  Nantz  had  se- 
cured to  the  Protestants  the  enjoyment  of  their  religious  pri- 
vileges, and  exercise  of  their  religion,    as  then  established. 
This  was  construed  to  preclude  the  formation  of  new  congre- 
gations, and  the  erection  of  new  churches,  except,  by  permis- 
sion, to  supply  the  place  of  old  ones  fallen  into  decay  or 
otherwise  rendered  useless  for  public  worship.     On  this  pre- 
tence, the  Protestants  were  continually  vexed  with  prosecu- 
tions alleging  that  one  or  other  of  their  congregations  or 
churches  had  been  formed  or  built  since  the  passage  of  the 
edict.     Such  a  charge  was  brought  by  the  Bishop  of  Bayeux 
and  some  Benedictine  monks,  against  the  church  at  Caen ; 
and  it  became  necessary  for  Bochart  and  his  colleagues,  with 
their  flock,  to  defend  in  a  civil  court  their  right  of  existence 
as  a  congregation.     False  evidence  and  forged  documents 
were  no  uncommon  resources  of  the  Romish  party  in  such 
suits ;  and  they  were  plentifully  employed  in  the  present  in- 
stance, (x)    The  patient  research,  multifarious  erudition,  and 
habits  of  keen  investigation,  of  Bochart,  rendered  him  pe- 
culiarly fit  for  the  detection  and  exposure  of  such  forgeries, 
and  were,  most  usefully  for  his  congregation,  employed  in 
that  task  for  the  remainder  of  his  days,  although  he  did  not 


(x)  A  pathetic  statement  of  the  situation  of  the  oppressed  Protestants 
of  Normandy,  with  particular  reference  to  the  suit  at  Caen,  occurs  in  a 
letter  of  Bochart  to  James  CxrEL,  bearing  date  April  19, 1665.  Opp 
Tom.  in.  c.  834.  s. 


136 


MEMOIRS  OF 


live  to  witness  the  victory  which  he  materially  contributed  to 
procure. 

He  found  time,  however,  during  these  more  necessary  avo- 
cations, for  occasional  essays  in  his  favourite  studies,  as  a  few 
of  his  minor  works  still  extant  prove  :  his  long  and  able  letter 
to  Louis  Capel  on  the  agency  of  the  Serpent  in  the  Temp- 
tation bears  date  April,  1665  ;  another  on  the  pronunciation 
of  Chaldee  and  Syriac,  and  the  utility  of  the  study  of  Arabic, 
is  dated  January,  1666  ;  and  his  last  literary  labour,  a  long 
letter  to  Hue t  in  defence  of  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  in  proof  that  it  was  maintained  by  Origen,  (y) 
was  composed  only  a  few  days  before  his  death. 


(y)  HoET  had  transcribed  the  Commentaries  of  Origen  from  a 
Manuscript  in  the  Royal  Library  at  Stockhotm,  at  the  request  of  Bo- 
chart,  ^oon  after  their  return  to  Caen,  Bochart  consulted  his  tran- 
script for  the  purpose  of  attentively  perusing  a  controverted  passage 
relating  to  the  Eucharist,  which  had  already  afforded  occasion  for  much 
debate.  Hcet,  in  revising  this  transcript,  had  discovered  Avhat  he  thought 
an  omission  in  copying,  and  had  supplied  it  from  a  manuscript  in  the 
library  of  the  king  of  France.  This  supplement  considerably  altered  the 
sense,  and  that,  too,  in  favour  of  the  Romish  church.  Bochart,  on  pe- 
rusing the  passage,  discovered  the  alteration,  and  without  delay,  warned 
several  of  his  learned  friends,  by  letter,  that  implicit  reliance  was  not 
to  be  placed  in  the  edition  of  Origen  which  Huet  was  then  about  to  pub- 
lish. The  latter  considered  this  as  an  imputation  upon  his  honesty ; 
and  after  expostulating  with  Bochart  without  obtaining  satisfaction 
('viz.  a  retraction  of  his  warnings)  broke  off  the  close  intimacy  in  which 
they  had  lived  till  that  time.*  Still,  an  occasional  correspondence 
on  the  subjects  of  their  studies  and  interchange  of  mutual  civilities, 
continued ;  and  it  appears  that  the  subject  which  had  produced  their 
difference  was  not  excluded  from  farther  discussion.  The  last  letter, 
mentioned  in  the  text,  was  probably  a  continuation  of  that  discussion, 
although  it  took  a  wider  range,  applying  the  authority  of  Origen  in 
support  of  the  Protestant  opinions  respecting  the  invocation  and  wop- 


*  This,  however,  may  have  been  only  a  pretext;  since  Huet  con- 
fesses, that  one  principal  reason  of  his  leaving  Sweden  before  Bochart^ 
was  the  fear  that  his  close  intimacy  with  that  divine  Avould  briug  him 
into  trouble  with  his  Romish  friends.  Comm.  Lib.  ii.  fin.  (Aikin'*' 
Memoirs,  i.  159.  s. ) 


bAMUKL  BOCHART.  137 

The  long  and  laborious  life  of  this  learned  man  was  brought 
to  a  characteristic  close  in  the  year  1667,  in  the  midst  of  an 
active  and  green  old  age.  Three  several  times  in  the  course 
of  six  months  he  had  been  suddenly  and  alarmingly  attacked, 
by  a  temporary  cessation  of  the  heart  to  perform  its  functions, 
brought  on,  as  his  physicians  assured  him,  by  excessive  study 
and  abstinence  from  personal  indulgence.  Each  time,  how- 
ever, he  speedily  recovered  perfect  health,  and  was  promised 
by  his  medical  advisers  a  complete  recovery  from  his  affec- 
tion, by  means  of  the  use  of  wine,  and  careful  attention  to 
stated  times  of  relaxation.  But  on  the  16th  of  May,  1667,  a 
fourth  attack  proved  instantaneously  fatal.  He  had  risen, 
according  to  his  custom,  very  early,  and  had  spent  the  morn- 
ing in  his  study,  writing  to  some  friends,  and  pursuing  his 
wonted  labour.  After  a  moderate  dinner,  he  had  gone  out, 
accompanied  by  Morin,  to  the  College  (Collegium  Sylvanum) 
where  his  only  grandson,  (M.  de  Colleville,  the  son  of  his 
only  daughter,  afterwards  Counsellor  in  tlie  Parliament  of 
Normandy)  that  day  maintained  his  philosophical  theses. 
From  three  to  five  in  the  afternoon  the  old  man  attended  to 
those  exercises,  and  enjoyed  himself  in  receiving  the  congra- 
tulations of  the  Faculty  of  the  College,  and  others  present, 
upon  the  excellent  performance  of  his  grandchild.  Thence 
he  proceeded,  still  accompanied  by  Morin,  to  the  house  of 
the  learned  and  noble  De  Brieux,  where,  it  being  Monday, 
the  stated  day  of  session,  the  Literary  Society  (or  Academy) 
of  Caen  was  to  meet.  There  he  parted  with  his  faithful 
friend  and  colleague,  but  was  gladly  and  affectionately  re- 
ceived by  his  fellow  associates  of  the  Academy.  He  had  re- 
ceived a  letter  from  Bouteroue,  a  learned  traveller  and 
medallist,  and  member  of  the  Chambre  des  Accomptes  at 
Paris,  requesting  information  as  to  the  country  and  value  of 
the  small  coin  known  in  trade  by  the  name  of  Marbotins,  and 
proposed  this  question  as  a  proper  subject  for  the  considera- 


ahip  of  angels,  as  well  as  their  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  the  only  topic 
originally  in  dispute     Aikis's  Memoirs  of  Huet,  i.  216.  306  ii.  41> 

18 


138  MEMoius  or 

tion  of  the  Academy.  Several  members  had  given  different 
opinions,  when  Bochaet  proceeded  to  declare  his  own,  that 
the  coin  was  of  Arabic  origin.  (2)  He  was  beginning  to  state 
his  reasons,  when  a  sensation  of  choaking  seized  him:  he 
drew  one  breath,  exclaimed  *  Mon  Dieu,  ayez  misericorde  de 
moi ! '  and  instantly  fell  down,  insensible,  in  faint  convulsions. 
MoRiN  was  immediately  sent  for  ;  and  on  his  arrival,  found 
his  colleague  in  the  midst  of  his  astounded  literary  associates, 
gasping  for  breath,  and  almost  dead.  He  had  the  dying  man 
removed  into  an  adjoining  chamber,  and  there,  to  use  his  own 
expression,  *  endeavoured  to  attract  his  notice  by  ardent 
prayers  to  God."  This  was  so  far  successful,  that  he  opened 
his  eyes,  fixed  them  on  Morin,  then  raised  them  to  heaven, 
and  closed  them,  to  open  them  no  more.  After  about  half 
an  hour  of  continued  suffering,  he  ceased  to  breathe.  Thus 
died,  as  he  had  lived,  in  the  midst  of  learning,  and  in 
the  discharge  of  social  duties,  the  learned,  the  great,  Bo- 
CHART.  He  had  not  yet  completed  his  sixty-eighth  year. 
Although  he  may  be  comparatively  said  to  have  reached 
a  good  old  age,  yet  when  we  consider  the  vast  quantity 
of  reading  which  must  have  been  necessary  to  furnish  him 
with  the  almost  countless  quotations  in  his  works  ;  the  volumi- 
nous  nature  of  those  works  themselves ; — and  his  acknow- 
ledged faithfulness  and  assiduity  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties 
as  a  pastor  and  as  a  defender  of  the  liberties  of  his  church ; — 
we  shall  be  astonished  that  he  could  have  done  so  much  in  so 


(z)  A  striking  exemplification  of  Mhe  leading  idea'  is  afforded  by 
Morin's  relation  of  this  event.  He  had  been  long  on  terras  of  the 
closest  intimacy  and  friendship  with  Bochart,  and  evidently  enter- 
tained a  sincere  affection  for  him.  His  account  of  B.'s  illness  and 
death  is  interrupted,  every  five  or  six  lines,  with  exclamations  of  grief 
and  tender  regret.  Yet  he  scarcely  allows  himsejf  time  to  relate  the 
circqrastajices  of  Bochart's  decease,  before  he  flies  off  into  a  disserta- 
tion of  half  a  folio  page  upon  the  true  nature  and  origin  of  the  coin 
which  occupied  the  latest  thoughts  of  that  learned  man.  After  he  has 
entirely  exhausted  his  erudition  upon  the  subject,  he  returns  to  the  re- 
lation of  some  circumstances  attending  the  death  of  Bochart,  and 
breaks  out  afresh  into  expressions  of  lamentation.  So  completely  para- 
mount was  his  love  of  learning  ! 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  139 

short  a  time.  An  ordinary  life  might  have  been  industriously 
employed  in  the  preparation  of  either  of  his  great  works ;  and 
that  man  would  be  said  to  have  lived  a  useful  life  who  should 
have  done  no  more  than  Bochart  performed  in  the  discharge 
of  his  parochial  duties,  in  his  defence  of  the  doctrines  of  his 
church  against  Veron  and  La  Barre,  in  his  participation  in 
her  legislative  councils,  and  in  his  assertion  of  her  rights  against 
the  unjust  pretensions  of  the  Bishop  of  Bayeux. 

It  has  been  mentioned,  that  soon  after  his  connexion  with 
the  church  at  Caen,  Bochart  commenced  a  course  of  sermons 
upon  the  book  of  Genesis.  It  was  a  somewhat  singular  coin- 
cidence, that  he  brought  them  to  the  middle  of  the  last  chap- 
ter but  one  of  the  book,  after  a  duration  of  at  least  five  and 
twenty  years,  only  the  week  before  his  death  ;  and  that  the 
very  text  on  which  he  had  prepared  to  preach  the  Sunday  fol- 
lowing his  decease,  was  the  18th  verse,  "  I  have  waited  for 
thy  salvation,  O  Lord." 

The  following  description  of  his  person  and  character  is 
translated  from  Morin,  who  certainly  enjoyed  great  oppor- 
tunities of  forming  an  accurate  opinion  respecting  both. 

"  His  figure  was  good,  although  of  a  middling  size.  He 
was  rather  agile  than  otherwise,  and  occasionally  walked  with 
considerable  rapidity.  His  head  was  well  shaped,  with  hair 
rather  scanty,  and,  before  it  became  grey,  of  an  auburn 
colour.  A  broad  and  prominent  forehead,  large  and  hand- 
some eyes,  florid  cheeks,  and  slightly  distended  nostrils,  were 
so  many  signs  of  an  ardent  temperament.  His  mouth  was 
small  and  well  formed  ;  and  a  pleasing  symmetry  w^as  con- 
spicuous in  his  whole  countenance."  (a) 


(«)  It  would  be  difficult  from  this  description  to  recognize  the  face 
prefixed  to  his  Hierotoicon,  and,  in  a  very  handsome  engraving,  to  the 
edition  of  his  collected  works  published  at  Leyden,  in  1712.  In  that, 
the  character  of  the  French  face  seems  to  be  mingled  with  that  of  the 
inhabitant  of  the  Upper  Rhine.  A  rather  low  and  retiring  forehead, 
and  somewhat  prominent  eyes,  a  large  and  thick  nose,  high  cheek-bones, 
square  and  projecting  maxillae,  and  a  compressed  mouth,  altogether, 
convey  to  the  beholder  the  idea  of  a  man  of  no  extraordinary  talent, 
but  of  dogged  perseverancej  and  of  rather  amiable  disposition. 


140 


MEMOIRS  OP 


"  As  to  his  manners,  they  were  benign,  harmless,  and  bene- 
volent. He  was  inclined  to  gaiety,  and  easily  irritated,  but 
his  anger  subsided  spontaneously ;  and  while  it  was  never 
aroused  by  any  thing  but  vice,  seldom  extended  to  the  actors 
even  of  that.  His  constancy  and  fidelity  in  friendship,  his  ex- 
traordinary humility,  meekness,  and  kindness  towards  every 
one  with  whom  he  was  connected,  and  his  sincere  piety  united 
with  the  most  fervent  zeal,  were  beyond  all  praise,  and  will 
remain  a  perpetual  example,  as  well  as  source  of  admiration, 
to  his  pious  friends."  {li) 

This  is  scarcely,  if  at  all,  overcharged.  Almost  every  thing 
that  we  have  remaining  of  Bochart  is  evidence  of  his  mo- 
desty, kind  dispositions,  and  readiness  to  oblige.  His  minor 
works  are  almost  all  written  at  the  request,  and  for  the  benefit, 
of  some  learned  friend.  His  few  remaining  letters  show  the 
warmth  and  delicacy  of  his  friendship,  and  bear  testimony  to 
his  extraordinary  circumspection  and  good  temper,  which 
could  enable  him  so  long  to  retain  the  friendship  of  the  jealous 
and  rancorous  Saumaise,  at  the  same  time  with  that  of  his 
bitter  adversary  Vossius  ;  while  he  himself  was  in  reality  a 
formidable  rival  to  both,  and  must  have  been  recognized  as 
such  by  men  so  tremblingly  alive  to  the  loss  of  literary  pre- 
eminence as  they.  Even  his  larger  works  are  striking  proofs 
of  his  modesty,  having  been  published  only  at  the  earnest 
solicitation  of  men  most  eminently  qualified  to  judge  of  their 
real  merit,  after  repeated  delays,  and  with  no  parade  of 
anxiety  respecting  their  reception.  From  all  we  can  learn, 
he  seems  to  have  committed  them  to  the  doubtful  tide  of  pub- 
lic opinion,  in  simplicity  of  heart,  as  his  tribute  to  the  instruc- 
tion of  mankind,  without  an  anxious  thought  respecting  their 
reception,  or  one  glance  at  their  probable  effect  upon  his  cha- 
racter and  reputation. 

It  would  be  superfluous  to  say  any  thing  respecting  the 
erudition  of  Bochart,  after  what  has  been  already  brought  in 
evidence  upon  the  subject.     In  Latin,  Greek,  Hebrew,  Chal- 


(6)  De  Clar.  Boch.  p.  35.  s 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  141 

dee,  and  the  Rabbinical  dialect,  he  may  be  considered  as  a 
perfect  scholar.  Few  attain  a  more  thorough  knowledge  of 
the  Arabic  and  Syriac  languages  than  he  possessed.  The 
Aethiopic  he  first  made  himself  acquainted  with  by  means  of 
the  Prodromus  of  Athanasius  Kircher,  and  afterwards 
studied  under  Ludolf,  who  resided  as  his  preceptor  for  some 
months  under  his  roof.  Of  this  and  the  Punic,  however,  he 
never  accounted  himself  master,  although  his  knowledge  of 
them  was  equalled  by  very  few,  until  toward  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  when  the  materials  and  means  of  informa- 
tion had  exceedingly  increased.  Of  the  modern  languages, 
after  the  fashion  of  the  day,  he  knew  only  his  native  tongue, 
and  never  attained  to  any  degree  of  elegance  of  composition 
even  in  that. 

His  correspondence  was  widely  extended,  and  maintained 
with  the  most  eminent  scholars  of  his  day,  but  apparently 
never  very  large.  Among  the  great  number  of  letters  of 
learned  men  of  that  age  which  have  been  preserved  in  various 
collections,  we  find  very  few  traces  of  Bochart  ;  and  about 
thirty  epistolary  disquisitions  on  matters  connected  with  the 
subjects  of  his  larger  works,  were  all  that  the  industry  of 
MoRiN,  Leusden,  and  Villamand  was  able  to  collect  for 
publication.  Saumaise,  the  elder  Vossius,  M.  Tapin,  a  Pas- 
tor of  Normandy,  M.  Herault,  a  Pastor  of  Normandy, 
Etienne  Lemoine,  Sarrau,  Segrais,  Michel  Fauquet,  and 
M.  Carbonel,  a  Counsellor  at  Paris,  are  the  persons  to  whom 
they  are  addressed. 


BOCHART. 


Part  II.    His  Works, 

If  extended  and  lasting  celebrity,  and  almost  unqualified 
applause,  constitute  a  reward  for  labour,  few  have  ever  been 
better  remunerated  for  their  efforts  in  behalf  of  theological 
literature  than  Bociiart.  Yet  perhaps  no  author  whose 
works  have  attained  the  rank  of  standards  is  so  little  read,  so 
generally  unknown,  by  those  who  quote  and  praise  him  at 
second-hand.  He  affords  an  admirable  instance  of  the  value 
of  praise  from  men  themselves  praiseworthy — *  laudari  a  viro 
laudato.'  Only  men  of  extensive  learning  are  fully  qualified 
to  judge  of  the  merits  of  Bochart  ;  and  by  these  he  has  al- 
ways been  placed  so  high  in  the  scale  of  literary  merit,  that 
it  has  been  impossible  for  the  crowd,  who  follow  them  at 
humble  distance,  to  avoid  bestowing  on  him  their  feebler  suf- 
frages. Hence  the  universality  of  his  fame  and  acknowledged 
merit. 

He  has  not,  however,  been  without  his  enemies.  That 
caustic  critic,  Father  Simon,  has  most  severely  censured  him 
on  more  than  one  occasion,  with  what  degree  of  justice  it  will 
be  more  proper  to  examine  in  another  place.  Others  have 
not  been  wanting  to  take  up  the  charges  brought  by  Simon, 
and  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  renew  them  against  our  au- 
thor. He  has  still  escaped,  and  his  reputation  has  scarcely 
received  a  blemish  from  all  the  attacks  which  have  been  made 
upon  it. 


144  AI£M01fih  OF 

It  would  be  presumption  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  such  a 
writer ;  but  a  review  of  the  plan  and  execution  of  his  works 
may  enable  us  with  some  degree  of  justice  to  appreciate  his 
value. 

The  first  published,  and  in  some  respects  the  most  valua- 
ble, production  of  Bochart  is  his  Geographia  Sacra,  com- 
prised in  two  independent  treatises,  under  the  titles  of  Phaleg 
and  Canaan. 

The  subjects  of  this  work  are,  the  regions  expressly  or 
tacitly  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  ;  the  dispersion  of  the  sons 
of  Noah,  and  the  origin  of  nations  ;  and  the  navigation,  com- 
merce, colonies,  language,  and  learning  of  the  Phoenicians. 

The  method  of  the  author  in  the  apportionment  of  this  ex- 
tensive field  of  inquiry  is  certainly  deserving  of  much  praise. 
A  general  division  distinguishes  what  relates  exclusively  to  > 
the  Phoenicians  from  the  remainder.  The  latter,  under  the 
title  of  "  Phaleg,  sive  de  dispersione  gentium  e  Babylonia  fac- 
tum, etdivisione  terrarum  inter  Noae  posteros,"  is  first  in 
order,  and  occupies  four  books.  The  former,  in  two  books, 
constitutes  a  second  part,  entitled  "  Canaan,  seu  de  coloniis  et 
sermone  Phoenicum." 

The^rs^  book  of  the  First  Part  is  occupied  with  disqui- 
tions  respecting  Noah  and  his  family,  and  the  traces  of  them 
supposed  to  be  discoverable  in  heathen  poetry  ;  concerning 
the  construction,  voyage,  and  landing,  of  the  ark  j  concerning 
the  relative  situation  of  Armenia  and  Babylon,  and  the  pro- 
gress of  the  descendants  of  Noah  to  the  latter  place  ;  and 
concerning  the  wonderful  circumstances  related  of  the  city 
supposed  to  have  been  founded  there  by  them.  The  second 
book  treats  of  the  settlement  of  the  posterity  of  Shem  ;  the 
third  of  that  of  the  sons  of  Japhet ;  and  the  fourth  of  the 
children  of  Ham  and  their  residence. 

The/r5^  book  of  the  Second  Part  relates  to  the  intercourse 
of  the  Phoenicians  with  other  nations,  and  to  their  colonies  ; 
the  second  treats  copiously  of  the  remaining  traces  of  their 
language  and  literature. 

In  filling  up  these  outlines,  Bochart  has  found,  or  made^ 
occasion  to  discuss  the  origin,  site,  language,  customs,  religion. 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  145 

and  ceremonial  obsei-vances,  of  almost  eVery  ancient  nation, 
and  to  describe  the  natural  features,  boundaries,  climate,  and 
divisions,  of  the  several  countries  w^hich  they  inhabited  ; — 
we  might  say,  without  much  exaggeration,  of  the  whole  an- 
cient world.  He  gives  his  reasons,  or  quotes  his  authority,  for 
every  assertion,  at  the  utmost  length ;  and  in  so  doing,  displays 
a  depth  of  research,  and  untiring  perseverance  in  investiga- 
tion, which  are  perfectly  astonishing.  The  most  recondite 
sources  of  information  appear  familiar  to  him.  The  his- 
torical and  geographical  writers  of  antiquity  are  examined 
with  scrupulous  minuteness  and  accuracy ;  and  not  even  a 
line  of  their  poets,  pertinent  to  his  subject,  has  escaped  his 
observation.  At  the  same  time  he  manifests  an  extensive  and 
intimate  acquaintance  with  the  best  modern  writers  on  the 
topics  of  his  book,  which  were  extant  in  his  day. 

Throughout  the  whole  of  the  work,  he  contrives  to  con- 
vey an  astonishing  mass  of  historical  information  relating  to 
the  rise  and  progress  of  kingdoms,  the  establishment  and  in- 
crease of  religions,  the  source  and  substance  of  the  mytholo- 
gical fables  of  the  ancients,  and  almost  all  the  minor  branches 
of  Jewish  and  heathen  antiquities.  The  author's  plan  in  con- 
ducting his  inquiries,  is,  in  every  instance,  to  examine  : 

1.  The  sound  and /orm  of  the  names  of  the  nation  in  ques- 
tion. To  this  examination  he  attaches  great,  probably  too 
much,  importance.  Yet  he  is  not  blindly  led  by  mere  fancy, 
as  some  have  preposterously  asserted,  but  lays  down  several 
very  judicious  cautions,  {a)  which  prove  the  justness  of  his 
notions  on  the  subject,  however  he  may  have  failed  in  some 
respects  in  practice. 

2.  The  coincidences  of  general  appellatives  in  sound  or 
form  with  names  of  particular  places  or  persons  belonging  to 
the  nation  bearing  such  appellatives.  To  this  species  of  evi- 
dence the  remarks  just  made  apply  with  greater  force,  as  it  is 
certainly  more  precarious  than  the  preceding. 

3.  The  significalions  of  names  ;  which  he  considers  as  sel- 


(a)  Praefat.  in  Phaleg.  Opp.  Tom.  ui.  p.  38. 

19 


146  MEMoins  or 

dom  entirely  destitute  of  meaning.  Here,  too,  it  must  be 
confessed,  he  is  too  apt  to  catch  at  overstrained  coincidences, 
and  attach  an  undue  importance  to  insignificant  or  isolated 
facts. 

4.  The  existence  of  synonyms^  in  Scripture  or  elsewhere  ; 
which  often  create  confusion,  and  yet  not  seldom,  if  properly 
examined,  afford  considerable  light. 

5.  The  descriptive  epithets  and  characteristics  ascribed  to 
various  countries  and  nations  ;  and  the  accordance  or  dis- 
agreement of  Scripture  with  profane  authors  in  these. 

6.  The  productions  of  a  country  ;  the  predominant  occu- 
pations of  its  inhabitants  ;  and  the  principal  articles  of  its 
commerce, 

7.  The  prophetical  and  historical  accounts  in  Scripture 
and  profane  authors. 

8.  The  natural  and  political  connexions  and  alliances  of 
nations. 

9.  The  respective  situations  of  countries,  especially  with 
reference  to  Judea. 

10.  Their  several  boundaries,  as  laid  down  in  Scripture,  or 
learned  from  other  sources  ;  and 

11.  The  name,  situation,  and  remarkable  circumstances  in 
the  history  of  the  mountains,  rivers,  lakes,  towns,  &c.  in  every 
country. 

On  all  these  points  he  derives  his  information  from  the  Sa- 
cred books  themselves  ;  their  commentators  and  versions  in 
every  language  ;  almost  every  ancient  writer  in  Greek,  La- 
tin, or  the  Eastern  languages  ;  and  the  philological  research- 
es of  the  most  learned  and  judicious  of  the  moderns.  His 
quotations  are  made  at  full  length,  in  the  original  languages, 
with  a  punctilious  nicety  and  attention  to  the  integrity  of  the 
text.  -He  is,  in  general,  cautious  to  avoid  reliance  upon  mu- 
tilated passages,  or  such  as  are  not  in  themselves  entirely  per- 
tinent, and  applicable  when  taken  in  connexion  with  their 
context.  In  his  choice  of  authorities  he  displays  a  nicety 
even  more  than  usual  in  his  age.  Although  the  nature  of  his 
subject  led  him  into  the  mist  of  mythological  and  poetic  fable, 
he  resisted  every  temptation  to  accept  the  guidance  of  the 


SAMUEL  BOCttART.  147 

ignes  fatui  of  supposititious  relics  of  antiquity.  The  Jewish 
Pscudepigrapha  ;  Berosus,  as  now  extant  ;  the  pretended 
Thaut,  or  Hermes  Trismegistus  ;  the  Argonautics  of  Orpheus  ; 
Dares  Phrygius  ;  Dictys  Cretensis  ;  the  forged  Etruscan 
antiquities  ;  and  the  Sibylline  oracles ;  he  rejects,  on  the  most 
solid  grounds.  He  disproves  the  pretensions  of  Zoroaster  to 
great  antiquity  ;  and  shows  that  the  writings  under  his  name 
are  spurious.  Sanchoniathon  he  only  admits  after  a  strict  and 
able  examination  of  the  evidence  in  his  favour  ;  and  then,  with- 
out reposing  implicit  confidence  in  his  translator,  Philo-Byb- 
lius. 

Such  were  the  materials  and  execution  of  a  work  which  left 
behind  it  at  an  immeasurable  distance  all  that  had  previously 
been  written  on  the  same  subject ;  and  which  for  upwards  of  a 
century  maintained,  without  an  attempt  at  rivalry,  the  rank  of 
sole  standard  in  that  bremch  of  knowledge.  While  its  me- 
rits were  thus  acknowledged,  its  faults  were  not  unseen. 
Father  Simon  tauntingly  declared  that  the  greater  part  of 
the  contents  of  the  '  Phaleg '  were  mere  conjectures,  (6)  and 
that  the  remainder  of  the  work  was  filled  with  uncertain  ety- 
mologies ;  (c)  and  Wolf  {d)  and  Dorn  (e)  repeat  the  charges. 
Yet  at  the  very  time,  these  critics  allow  that  the  conjectures 
themselves  are  often  happy  and  of  no  small  use  ;  (/)  that  the 
work  so  perfectly  illustrates  its  subject  as  to  leave  nothing 


(6)  "  La  plus-part  de  ce  qui  est  rapporte — dans  la  Phaleg — n'est  sou- 
vent  appuye  que  sur  des  conjectures."  Simon.  Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T. 
Liv.  Ill,  0.  XX.  p.  481.  ed.  Rot. 

(c)  "  En  eflFet,  si  I'on  excepte  la  premiere  partie  de  son  Phaleg,  queya 
t'  il  dans  le  reste  de  ce  livre — que  des  etymologies  et  un  amas  confus  de 
literature,  qui  n'est  le  plus  souvent  gueres  k  propos  ?"  Simon  Rep.  a  la 
Def.  des  Sent,  de  quelq.  Theol.  Holl.  p.  72.  ed.  Rot. 

(d)  BocH.  in  Geographia  Sacra — ^praecipue  etymologiae,  ut  in  aliis, 
ita  hie  quoque,  rationem  habuit."    Wolf.  Hist.  Lex.  Hebraic,  p.  239. 

(e)  "Quanquam  meris  plerumque  nituntur  conjecturis."  Dornii 
Bibl.  Theol.  Crit.  P.  ii.  p.  167. 

(/)  "  Ces  sortes  de  conjectures  sont  quelquefois  utiles,  en  ce  que  si 
vous  ne  decouvrez  pas  toujours  la  verity,  au  moins  pent  on  se  precaution- 
ner  pour  nc  pas  tomber  dans  rerreur."  Simoit.  Hist.  Crit.  du  V,  T.  ubi 
supra. 


148  MEMOIRS  OF 

more  to  be  done  ;  {g)  and  that  its  conjectural  disquisitions  arr 
replete  with  usefulness,  and  lead  directly  to  the  truth.  (/*) 

In  the  year  1768  the  learned  and  indefatigable  Michaelis 
commenced  the  publication  of  a  work  upon  the  Geography 
of  the  Old  Testament,  with  especial  reference  to  the  10th 
chapter  of  Genesis.  Vastly  as  the  *  subsidia '  were  increased 
in  number,  great  as  had  been  the  progress  of  theological 
science  during  the  century  and  a  quarter  which  had  elapsed 
since  the  publication  of  Bochart's  Geography,  he  did  not 
deem  it  possible  to  supersede  that  work.  On  the  contrary, 
he  gave  the  strongest  testimony  in  its  favour,  by  taking  for 
his  own  production  the  modest  rank  of  a  Supplement.  "  The 
matter,"  says  Eichhorn,  in  his  biographical  notice  of  Mi- 
chaelis, {i)  "  had  already  been  excellently  handled  by  Bo- 
chart,  who  had  left  scarcely  any  thing  to  be  done  in  the  way 
of  illustrating  names  from  the  ancient  classics,  the  Versions  of 
the  Bible,  or  the  Arab  writers.  But  one  source  of  informa- 
tion subservient  to  his  purposes,  which  had  at  that  time  already 
been  partly  opened, — modern  travels  in  the  East, — he  had 
disdained  to  use :  and,  on  the  other  hand,  he  abounded  in 
etymologies,  and  often  changed  questions  of  historical  re- 
search into  mere  etymological  inquiries.  Since  the  time  of 
BocHART,  moreover,  Assemanni  had  laid  open  a  new  and 
rich  field  of  geographical  discover j%  of  which  no  one  had  as 


(g)  BocH.  in  Geographia  Sacra,  locorum  nomina  in  sacro  codice  oc- 
curentia,  ita  illustravit,  ut  aliis  otia  fecerit."    Wolfios,  ubi  supra. 

(h)  Cumulatissimae  doctrinae  volumina  sunt,  in  quibus  magnum  diffi- 
cillimorum  Scripturae  V.  T.  locorum  numerum  dilucide  ubique  explica- 
vit.  Et  quancjuam,  &c. — cae  tamen  ita  sunt  comparatae,  ut  summa  ex 
inde  ad  legentes  redundet  utilitas,  etregiaad  veritatem  via  digito  quasi 
commonstretur."    Dorn.  ubi  supra. 

(i)  Eichhobn's  AUg.  Bibliothek  der  Bibl.  Litcratur.  B.  iii.  s.  849.  f. 
The  title  of  Michaelis'  work  was  '  Spicilegium  Geographiae  Hebrae- 
orum  exterae  post  Bochartum.'  ii  Ptes.  4to.  Gottingae,  1768— 7a  It 
gave  occasion  to  another  by  Jo.  Rkinhold  Forster,  under  the  title  of 
'  Epistolae  ad  J.  D.  Michaelem,  hujus  Spicilegium  Geographiae  Hc- 
braeorum  exterae  jam  confirmantes,  i>m  castigantes.,  4to.  Gottingae, 
1772. 


SAMUEL  BOCHART. 


149 


yet  been  able  to  make  use.  Michaelis  was  desirous  to 
make  trial  how  much  light  could  be  elicited  upon  this  part  of 
the  shades  of  antiquity  from  the  travels  and  the  writings  of 
learned  Syrians.  He  wished  to  sift  the  Etymologies  of  Bo- 
chart,  and  to  reduce  their  application  in  geographical  investi- 
gations within  narrower  limits,  and  especially  to  give  to  such 
investigations  more  of  the  character  of  historical  research." 

Many  systems  of  Sacred  Geography  have  been  written 
since  that  time,  some  of  great  value,  and  certainly  far  prefer- 
able to  BocH  art's  for  ordinary  use :  but  his  still  maintains  its 
character  as  a  standard  lx)ok  of  reference  and  ultimate  au- 
thority, and  is  universally  allowed  to  merit  at  least  the  praise 
of  being  "  a  very  learned  compilation,"  though  by  some  it 
may  be  thought  to  be  "  overfilled  with  bold  hypotheses."  {k) 

The  Geographia  Sacra  was  first  printed,  each  part  sepa- 
rately, at  Caen,  in  folio,  in  1646.  This  edition  is  neither  neat 
nor  accurate.  The  Phaleg  was  republished  at  the  same  place 
in  folio,  in  1651.  (l) 

The  whole  work  was  reprinted  at  Frankfort  on  Maine,  in 
4to.,  in  1674,  and  again  in  1681 ;  and  in  the  collected  works 
of  the  author,  in  folio,  at  Leyden,  in  1692,  and  in  1707. 

This  is  undoubtedly  the  masterpiece  of  our  author.  It  is  less 
behind  the  advanced  state  of  modern  science  than  either  of 
his  other  productions.  This  may  be  accounted  for  by  the 
fact  that  its  subjects  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  require  little 
more  than  accuracy  of  research  and  patient  investigation,  with 
ordinary  critical  abilities  for  the  management  of  materials 
thus  obtained ;  and  they  admit  of  but  little  novelty  of  dis- 
covery.    The  arrangement  of  the  w  ork,  too,  is  more  perspi- 


(fc)  "Eine  sehr  gelehrte,  aber  mitkuehnen  Hypothesen  ueberfuellte 
Zusammensfellung."  Gesenius.  Art.  Bibiische  Geographic,  in  Allg. 
Enc.  (Bibel,  Leipzig,  8vo.  1823,  p.  206.  not.  35). 

(/)  Bayle  ( Diet.  Art.  BOCHART,  Note  C.  )  with  his  usual  flip- 
pancy, questions  the  accuracy  of  Sir  Thomas-Pope-BIount,  who  men- 
tions this  edition,  because  he  (Bayle)  had  never  seen  it !  I  have  both 
seen  and  used  it.  It  appears  to  be  a  mere  reprinted  title,  and  is  some- 
times bound  up  with  the  older  edition  of  the  '  Canaan.' 


150  MEMOIRS  OF 

cuous,  and  its  execution  more  correct,  than  that  of  the  Hiero- 
zoicon. 

Nevertheless,  the  latter  appears  to  have  been  the  favourite 
of  the  author,  who  bestowed  more  pains  upon  it,  and  occa- 
sionally speaks  of  it  as  his  *  magnum  opus/  It  certainly  has 
secured  for  itself  a  greater  share  of  public  favour,  as  the  num- 
ber of  editions  and  abridgments  plainly  testifies.  Perhaps 
we  may  attribute  this  to  the  greater  degree  of  interest  taken 
in  its  subjects,  and,  in  some  measure,  to  its  containing  more 
original  discovery  that  has  maintained  its  value.  In  variety 
of  learning,  and  multiphcity  of  quotations,  especially  from 
Oriental  writers,  it  undoubtedly  much  exceeds  the  Geo- 
graphy ;  and  this  was  sufficient,  at  the  time  of  its  publication, 
to  secure  it  a  superior  degree  of  admiration,  (m)  which  may 
have  been  handed  down,  while  the  cause  has  ceased  to  exer- 
cise any  influence. 

An  incredible  degree  of  labom-  was  bestowed  by  Bochart 
upon  this  work.  It  occupied  his  leisure  time  for  nearly  twenty 
years,  of  which  the  two  that  he  spent  in  Sweden  were  devot- 
ed almost  wholly  to  researches  on  its  subjects,  principally  in 
the  noble  Oriental  library  at  that  time  in  possession  of  Chris- 
tina. The  diligence  with  which  he  examined  the  minutest 
subjects  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  a  letter  written 
about  that  time  to  Huet,  he  called  the  attention  of  that  learn- 
ed man  to  a  passage  consisting  of  only  two  words,  illustrative 
of  a  subsidiary  argument  in  some  portion  of  his  work,  and  ac- 
tually requested  his  assistance  in  the  examination  of  so  minute 
a  point,  (n) 
By  way  of  displaying  fully  the  merits  of  this  fruit  of  many  tpils, 


(m)  ''  BocHARTi  Hierozoicon,  summo  studio  conscriptum  opus,  quod 
raerito  thesaurum  quemdaraexquisitae  et  profuhdae  eruditionis  dixeris." 
BudDjEI  Isagoge.  i.  275.  6. — "  Stupendum  illud  opus  Bocharti  de  ani- 
malibus  Sacrae  Scripturae."    Wolfius.  Hist.  Lex.  Heb.  p.  67. 

(n)  The  passage  in  question  was  the  words  n«gff-//c»  7rtTTfit»»,  in  the 
poem  of  Paul  Silentiarius  on  the  Pythian  thermae,  contained  in  the 
Greek  Anthology.  Huetii  Coram,  de  Vit.  sua.  Lib.  in,  (Aikin's  Huet.  i. 
212.) 


• ' bAMUEL  BOCHART.  151 

BocHART  himself  prefixed  a  perfect  syllabus  of  its  contents,  in 
the  shape  of  a  preface,  of  sixty-three  closely  printed  pages.  In 
this  he  also  fully  states  his  views,  and  enters  into  some  vindica- 
tion of  the  manner  ia  which  he  had  endeavoured  to  carry  them 
into  effect.  His  design  in  the  work  he  represents  as  twofold : 
Jirsty  to  ascertain  the  animals  designated  by  names  used  in  the 
Scriptures  ;  and  secondly ^  to  describe  those  animals,  their  ha- 
bits, residence,  and  peculiarities,  and  to  explain  the  manner 
and  occasion  of  their  introduction  in  the  sacred  books.  He 
traces  the  peculiar  necessity  of  the  first  species  of  investiga- 
tion to  the  disuse  of  the  Hebrew  language,  and  the  perfunc- 
tory discussion  of  subjects  of  natural  history  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, the  only  authentic  depositary  of  that  language.  The 
want  of  evidence  which  these  causes  create,  he  continually  en- 
deavours to  supply  from  other  Oriental  languages,  and  from 
the  supplementary  testimony  of  the  ancient  versions  and  com- 
mentators. In  his  time,  few  subjects  connected  with  the 
Scriptures  had  received  less  attention  than  their  natural  his- 
tory, and  the  number  of  errors  in  this  department  was  pro- 
portionably  great.  Of  course  it  became  the  business  of  Bo- 
cHART  to  notice  and  refute  them,  which  he  does  at  length, 
and  with  such  ability,  that  Simon,  who  is  unwilling  to  concede 
to  him  any  other  merit,  is  under  the  necessity  of  allowing  that 
in  this  respect  his  work  is  useful,  (o) 

In  this  preface,  our  author  represents  as  one  important  ob- 
ject of  inquiry,  the  reasons  why  the  several  names  of  animals 
occurring  in  the  Scriptures  were  given  to  the  creatures  which 
they  respectively  designate.  He  assumes  that  the  Hebrew 
was  the  primeval  language  ; — that  Adam  gave  names  to  all 
the  animals  ; — that  he  possessed  an  accurate  and  intimate 


(o)  "  Au  moins  peut  on  se  precautionner  pour  ne  pas  tomber  dans 
I'erreur:  et  c'est  en  quoi  le — ^livre  qui  traite  des  animaux  dont  il  est  parle 
dans  I'Ecriture  peut  beaucoup  servir;  carbien  qu'onne  sgachepasau  vrai 
les  noms  d'une  bonne  partie  des  animaux  dontil  est  fait  mention  dans 
la  Bible,  il  donne  quelquefois  assez  de  lumiere  pour  exclure  de  certains 
animaux,  auxquels  ces  meraes  noms  ne  peuvent  convenir."  Simon,  Hist. 
Crit.  du  Vieux  Test.  Liv.  in.  c.  xx.  p.  481.  ed.  Roterd. 


152  MEMOIRS  OP 

knowledge  of  their  natures  ;— and  that  he  intended  to  convey 
all,  or  a  portion,  of  that  knowledge,  in  the  names  given  them. 
Either  of  these  assumptions  it  would  be  difficult,  not  to  say 
impossible,  for  him  to  prove.  The  rule  which  he  has  founded 
on  them  has  given  occasion  to  much  unnecessary  disquisition 
in  his  work,  and  to  the  indulgence  of  some  almost  ludicrous 
fancies,  (p) 

The  Hierozoicon,  like  the  Geography,  is  divided  into  Two 
Parts,  each  containing  several  books,  in  all,  ten  in  number. 

The  first  book  opens  with  a  general  introduction  to  the 
subject,  and,  ancient  precept  to  the  contrary  notwithstand- 
ing, *  orditur  ab  ovo,'  affording  no  small  occasion  of  sneering 
to  that  critic-general  of  beginnings,  Father  Simon.  The  au- 
thor treats  of  animals  in  general, — their  origin,  nature,  and 
use.  According  to  his  usual  method,  the  discussion  opens 
with  an  examination  of  the  word  animal  (n^n,  ?wov.).  In  this 
he  spends  some  time  to  show  that  life  is  attributed  to  plants  as 
well  as  animals  ;  and  quotes  for  that  purpose  the  Scriptures, 
Jewish  Commentators,  and  Heathen  Poets.  The  bearing 
which  this  might  have  upon  the  precept  of  Pythagoras  pro- 
hibiting the  use  of  any  living  thing  for  food,  introduces  that 
philosopher,  and  a  discussion  of  his  opinions  on  the  subject. 

The  grand  divisions  of  the  animal  kingdom  are  next  laid 
down,  and  the  several  systems  of  subdivision  stated.  The  re- 
lative station  of  animals  in  the  creation ;  their  subjection  to 
Adam,  and  their  reception  of  names  from  him,  are  then  as- 
serted. On  the  assumption  that  the  names  now  extant  are 
those  which  were  then  given,  a  long  digression  is  entered  into, 
to  prove  that  the  Hebrew  names  of  animals  are  indicative  of 
some  quality  in  the  animal  itself,  or  circumstance  in  its  habits. 
Thus  concludes  the  introduction  to  the  work. 


(p)  The  hog,  for  instance,  he  supposes  to  be  called  Tin,  on  account  of 
the  smallness  of  its  eyes,  because  in  Arabic  ,//^  means  to  have  small 
eyes:— just  as  if  the  Arabic  word  were  not  derived  from  TJtXl;  as  we  now 
speak  of  '  having  pig's  eyes' ! — The  dog,  too,  is  to  be  called  ^Sd,  from 
UwD,  translated  by  Jerome  Uncinum,  and  the  Arabic  S'^-K^harpago  ; 
because  he  holds  any  thing  in  his  jaws  as  if  it  were  in  a  pair  of  tongs  !  * 
Hieroz.  Lib.  i.  c.  ix.  p.  61,  ed.  Lugd.  Bat.  1712. 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  153 

The  next  three  books  relate  to  quadrupeds. 

The  second  book  contains  the  history  of  the  domestic  qua- 
drupeds introduced  in  Scripture,  of  which  ten  sorts  are  enu- 
merated. Their  names,  habits,  pecularities,  uses,  and  pro- 
ducts are  discussed  at  length.  The  accounts  of  them  con- 
tained in  the  writings  of  the  ancients  and  Orientals  are  col- 
lected. Events  in  sacred  history  in  which  they  had  a  share 
are  recounted  and  examined.  Miracles  relating  to  them  are 
investigated.  Laws  having  any  reference  to  them  are  stated 
and  explained.  Mythological  allusions  are  elucidated  and 
applied  to  the  illustration  of  sacred  history.  Proverbs  in 
which  these  animals  are  introduced,  occurring  either  in  Scrip- 
ture or  in  the  eastern  languages,  are  collected  and  explained. 
Figurative  expressions,  drawn  from  their  appearance  or  habits, 
are  enumerated  and  elucidated.  In  fine,  all  the  passages  of 
Scripture  in  which  mention  of  them  occurs  are  recounted, 
and  if  difficult,  cleared  up.  • 

The  third  book  treats  of  the  wild  quadrupeds  mentioned  in 
Scripture,  of  which  twenty-seven  sorts  come  under  observation. 

The  method  is  the  same  as  in  the  last  book  (which,  indeed, 
is  nearly  uniform  in  all  the  succeeding  books)  but,  if  possible, 
more  particular,  in  proportion  as  the  little  known  of  the  ani- 
mals in  question  renders  the  subject  more  difficult ;  and  on 
account  of  their  more  frequent  introduction  in  metaphorical 
expressions. 

Book  the  fourth  relates  to  oviparous  quadrupeds.  Those 
noticed  in  the  sacred  books  are  few  in  number,  but  they  have 
created  more  difficulty  than  any  other  branch  of  the  natural 
history  of  the  Scriptures.  They  were  almost  entirely  un- 
known, until  the  learned  researches  of  our  author  threw  new 
and  copious  light  upon  the  subject,  derived,  in  a  great  mea- 
sure, from  the  writings  of  the  Arabians.  The  confusion  among 
the  principal  versions  in  modern  languages,  in  rendering  the 
names  of  these  animals,  is  amusing.  Six  animals  are  named 
by  Moses,  Lev.  xi.  29,  30,  all  of  which  Bochart  has  proved 
to  be  different  species  of  lizards,  and  has  been  followed  in  his 
opinion  by  the  most  eminent   Hebraists.       Of   these  the 

^0 


154  MEMOIRS  OF 

first,  ay,  has  been  called  a  toad,  a  tortoise,  and  a  sort  of 
SHELL-FISH.  The  sccond,  np:K,  a  newt,  a  species  of  locust, 
a  SPIDER,  a  winged  reptile,  a  castor,  and  an  otter  :  the 
third,  n^,  a  chameleon,  a  tortoise,  a  snail,  a  squirrel,  and 
a  crocodile  :  the  fourth,  hndS,  a  sort  of  salamander,  a  species 
of  amphibious  animal  (latacem),  a  mouse,  a  spider,  a  newt, 
and  a  lizard  :  the  fifth,  tamn,  a  snail,  a  bat  :  the  sixth,  riD'^Jtn, 
a  chameleon,  a  mole,  and  a  bat.  From  such  perplexity  has 
the  laborious  investigation  of  Bochart  delivered  us  !  In  all 
such  cases,  he  patiently  examines  and  refutes  the  variant  mis- 
interpretations, before  he  proceeds  to  establish  his  ov^rn,  which 
he  generally  does  by  nuiiierous  and  pertinent  proofs  from 
Oriental  writers. 

With  the  fourth  book  ends  the  First  Part  of  the  work,  or 
that  relating  to  quadrupeds. 

The  Second  Part  comprises  six  books.  Of  these  the  first 
two  relate  to  birds. 

The  first,  or  fifth  of  the  whole  Avork,  contains  the  history  of 
those  designated  as  clean  in  the  Mosaic  law. 

The  sixth  book  treats  of  the  unclean  birds,  twenty  in  num- 
ber, in  the  order  in  which  they  are  recounted,  Lev.  xi.  13, 
Deut.  xiv.  2. 

The  seventh  book  relates  to  reptiles  generally :  but  by  far 
the  largest  portion  of  its  contents  is  occupied  by  the  several 
sorts  of  serpents  mentioned,  or  supposed  to  be  mentioned,  in 
the  sacred  books. 

The  eighth  book  gives  an  account  of  insects,  with  even 
more  than  ordinary  diffuseness. 

The  ninth  treats  of  aquatile  animals,  of  which  but  few  are 
mentioned  in  the  Scriptures :  and  of  the  productions  of  the 
ocean,  such  as  pearls,  the  purple-fish,  amber,  &;c. 

The  tenth  and  last  division  of  the  work  discusses  the  ac- 
counts of  fabulous  animals  transmitted  by  the  ancients  and 
Oriental  writers,  mention  of  which,  although  not  made  in  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  repeatedly  occurs  in  the  ancient  ver- 
sions. Among  these  our  author  reckons  the  ant-lion,  now 
well  known,  and  by  no  means  considered  as  uncommon. 
Beside   this,  the  goathart,   griffin,  phoenix,  syrens,  lamia, 


bAMUEL  BOCHART.  155 

satyrs,  fauns,  onocentaurs,  and  hippocentaurs,  are  introduced. 
Every  thing  related  of  them  is  collected  ;  their  non-existence 
is  proved  ;  and  the  true  meanings  of  the  passages  into  which 
they  have  been  improperly  introduced  by  the  ancient  inter- 
preters, are  given  and  defended.  The  whole  concludes  with 
a  similar  notice  of  some  fictitious  animals  of  the  Arabian  na- 
turalists, not  in  anywise  connected  with  the  Scriptures,  but 
introduced  by  Boo  hart  to  show  that  he  did  not  place  an  im- 
plicit and  blind  confidence  in  those  from  whom  he  had  bor- 
rowed so  extensively,  and  derived  so  large  a  proportion  of 
his  discoveries. 

Simon,  while  party  feeling  led  him  to  depreciate  the  merits 
of  BocHART,  showed  his  usual  sagacity  when  he  fixed  upon 
the  destruction  of  prevailing  errors  as  the  principal  utility  of 
his  Hierozoicon.  It  cleared  away  the  rubbish  that  ages  had 
been  heaping  upon  its  subject,  and  if  it  did  not  always  bring 
to  light  a  perfect  structure  in  its  stead,  we  should  remember 
that  '  non  omnia  omnes,'  and  that  none  but  a  Hercules  could 
have  so  completely  removed  the  accumulated  filth.  The  very 
list  of  the  more  important  errors  which  Bochart  enumerates 
as  corrected  in  his  work,  and  which  have  since  been  acknow- 
ledged, almost  without  exception,  as  such,  is  appalling.  One 
species  of  the  same  animal  has  been  mistaken  for  another; 
animals  of  the  same  general  class  have  been  interchanged  ; 
beasts  have  been  taken  for  birds,  for  insects,  and  even  fishes ; 
and  the  names  of  animals  have  been  mistaken  for  those  of 
places.  Under  these  four  classes  of  misinterpretations  he  ar- 
ranges a  list  occupying  nineteen  folio  pages.  It  is  important  to 
recount  these  particulars,  because  we  cannot  properly  appre- 
ciate the  value  of  the  Hierozoicon  without  an  idea  of  its  ef- 
fects in  this  respect.  If  it  had  contained  no  original  views, 
nothing  meriting  transmission  to  posterity,  its  author  would 
have  deserved  well  of  biblical  students  for  all  generations,  for 
his  exploits  in  the  demolition  of  ancient  prejudice  and  error. 

But  the  work  has  its  uses,  and  claims  to  notice,  on  its  own 
account.  It  would  not  be  saying  loo  much  to  assert  that 
two  thirds  of  all  the  explanations  of  Scriptural  names  of  ani- 
mals given  by  Bochart,  have  been  adopted  by  the  ablest 


lo6 


MEMOIRS  Oi' 


Orientalists  since  his  time.  The  treasure  of  zoological  language 
which  he  has  gathered  from  Oriental  writers  has  been  draw^n 
upon  by  every  philologist  of  note,  and  is  yet  unexhausted. 
The  information  w  hich  he  has  collected  from  the  same  sources 
respecting  the  appearance,  habits,  and  products,  of  animals 
residing  in  the  East,  has  been  in  the  main  confirmed  by  the 
researches  of  modern  travellers.  He  has  afforded  the  key  to 
many  discoveries  which  have  been  made  in  later  times,  and 
assisted  men  of  perhaps  less  learning  and  abilities  to  proceed 
farther  than  he  had  done  himself.  In  his  preface  he  claims 
to  have  thrown  light  upon  many  parts  -of  Holy  writ  by  his  in- 
terpretations of  single  passages  and  whole  phrases ;  and  it  is 
undeniable  that  he  deserves  great  praise  on  that  account. 

Many  explanations  of  passages  formerly  considered  diffi- 
cult, which  are  now  universally  received,  and  familiar  to  the 
merest  tyro,  owe  their  origin  to  him.  Many  which  for  a  time 
were  esteemed  improbable,  have  gradually  acquired  an  esta- 
blished authority.  Many,  yet  the  subjects  of  a  difference  of 
opinion,  are  nevertheless  espoused  by  most  learned  and  judi- 
cious critics. 

On  the  whole,  the  character  of  this  work  cannot  be  bettet^ 
given  than  in  the  words  of  Gesenius,  certainly  a  competent 
judge.  "  The  work  of  Boon  art  is  in  the  highest  rank  of 
classics  in  biblical  Zoology.  Its  author  was  one  of  the  greatest 
Oriental  philologists  of  modern  times.  In  this  production  he 
has  made  use  of  every  thing  that  could  be  furnished  by  the 
most  extensive  etymological  knowledge  of  the  Oriental  lan- 
guages, by  the  Arabian  natural  historians,  and  by  the  ancient 
versions  and  classical  writers,  for  the  elucidation  of  the  names 
of  animals  w^hich  occur  in  Scripture,  and  of  all  the  passages 
of  the  Bible  which  have  any  reference  to  Zoology.  Yet  per- 
haps etymological  disquisitions  are  too  prevalent  in  the 
work."  (7) 


(9)  "  Fuer — ^biblische  Zoologle  besitzen  wir  ein  hocchst  klassisches 
Werk  von  Sam.  Bochart,  einem  der  groessesten  orientalischen  Philolo- 
gen  der  neuern  Zeit,  worin  alles  aufgeboten  ist,  was  die  ausgebreit- 
este  etymologische  Kenntnii*?  der  orientaJischen  Sprachen.  was  Arab- 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  I5T 

The  Hierozoicon  was  first  printed  at  London,  by  Allestrey, 
the  pubHsher  of  the  London  Polyglot,  and  with  the  oriental 
types  used  for  that  noble  work,  in  2  volumes  folio,  in  1663. 
This  edition  is  spoken  of  as  being  splendid,  but  by  no  means 
accurately  printed,  (r) 

As  early  as  1675  it  was  reprinted  with  more  care,  in  folioy 
at  Frankfort  on  the  Maine.  It  was  again  republished  in  the 
author's  collected  works,  at  Utrecht,  in  1692,  and  at  Leyden, 
in  1712. 

In  1686  there  appeared  at  Frankfort,  in  8vo.,  an  abridgment 
of  this  work  by  Jo.  H.  Maius,  of  Giesse,  who  took  the  liber- 
ty of  frequently  correcting  his  author  in  supplementary  notes, 
which,  however,  were  of  no  great  importance,  {s)  In  1690 
it  was  again  epitomized  by  Stephen  M.  Vesceus,  or  Veczci^ 
a  Hungarian,  and  published  in  4to.,  at  Franeker. 

In  1793,  the  younger  Rosenmueller  superintended  the 
publication  of  a  new  edition  in  3  vols.  4to.,  at  Leipsic.  But 
he  destroyed  its  value  to  the  accurate  philologist,  by  mutilating 
the  work  at  pleasure,  and  making  additions  of  his  own  with- 
out distinction  from  the  original  text.  This  excited  consider- 
able clamour  at  the  time,  (t)  and  although  the  book  was  in- 
trinsically valuable  to  the  biblical  student,  it  has  never  obtain- 
ed a  full  circulation. 

Something  of  a  different  nature  had  previously  been  at- 
tempted by  F.  J.  ScHODER,  who  published  at  Tubingen,  in 
8vo.,  in  the  years  1784,  1786,  three  tracts,  entitled  *  Specimi- 
na  Hierozoici  ex  Sam.  Bocharto  aliisque  virorum  commenta- 


ische  Naturhistoriken,  die  alten  Versionen  und  kl  assiken  Schriftsteller 
zur  Erklaerung  der  vorkommendcn  Thiernamen  und  aller  auf  Zoologie 
irgend  Beziig  habenden  Bibelsteller  darbieten,  und  nur  die  etyraolo- 
gische  Ruecksicht  vielleicht  zu  sehr  vorherrscht." — Art.  Biblisckk 
Geographie  in  der  Allgem.  Encyklopaedie  (Bibel.  S.  215.) 

(r)  "  Splendide  satis,  sed  admodum  vitiose.*'    Dorn,  ubi  supra. 

(s)  "  Animadversiones  momenli  sunt  exigui ; "  says  Dork,  ubi 
supra,  p.  167.  But  Fabricius,  Bibl.  Antiquaria,  p.  499.  appears  inclined 
to  allow  them  more  value. 

(<)  See  Neues  tbeologisches  Journal,  hcrausg.  von  Ammon,  Haenlei.v, 
nnd  Paulus;  vx  B.  S.  684.  if. 


158  '  MEMOIRS  OF 

riis  et  itinerariis  compositi/  In  this  the  matter  furnished  by 
BocHART  was  worked  up  together  with  that  obtained  from 
other  sources,  into  a  new  form,  and  the  editor  made  iiimself 
responsible  for  all.  The  want  of  a  favourable  reception,  or 
some  other  unknown  cause,  prevented  the  completion  of  this 
work,  which  certainly  possessed  the  merit  of  a  good  design 
and  well  laid  plan. 

The  Hierozoicon  of  Bochart  formed  only  a  single  divi- 
sion of  a  work  which  he  had  sketched  out  to  himself,  to  com- 
prize an  entire  system  of  the  natural  history  of  Scripture. 
The  vegetable  and  mineral  kingdoms  yet  remained  to  be  ex- 
amined, and  presented  fields  of  investigation  at  least  as  broad 
and  difficult  as  that  already  explored.  It  is  certain  that  our 
author  did  at  one  time  intend  to  complete  this  plan,  as  he  re- 
fers to  a  forthcoming  work  on  the  Plants  of  Scripture,  in  a 
passage  of  the  Hierozoicon.  {u)  Some  disjointed  fragments 
left  behind  him  (v)  prove  that  his  researches  had  been  com- 
menced, and  give  us  ample  reason  to  lament  that  circum- 
stances prevented  their  completion.  He  had  also  begun  a 
work  on  the  Gems  of  Scripture,  a  subject  even  to  this  day 
almost  wholly  shrouded  in  gloom  and  difficulty ;  and,  ac- 
cording to  MoRiN,  had  collected  a  considerable  quantity  of 
materials,  which  he  was  continually  increasing  in  the  course 
of  his  multifarious  studies.  How  far  he  had  progressed  to- 
wards a  perfect  work  is  unknown,  for  his  collections  perish- 
ed with  him.  (zu) 

Beside  these  larger  monuments  of  his  industry  and  learning, 
our  author  produced  a  considerable  number  of  minor  pieces. 


(tt)  Pt.  II.  Opp.  Tom.  n.  p.  847.  So  also  Fabricius  Bibliotheca  An 
tiquaria,  p.  501,  on  the  authority  of  E.  Benzel  in  Actis  Literariis  Sue 
ciae,  Ann.  1721.  p.  157. 

(v)  '  An  Dudaim  sint  tubera,  &c.  ad  Gen.  xxx.  14.  Opp.  in.  866.  ss 
De  variis  Mannae  speciebus^c.  Ibid.  p.  871.  De  voce  Talraudica  Col 
CHA,  ad  Lev.  xix.  19.  Ibid.  p.  880.  De  vocum  "ISD  et  rt^mw,  signi 
ficationibus,  Ibid.  p.  916,  and,  Quid  sit  Kikaion  de  quo  Iona,  iv.  6.  Ibid 
917.  ss. 

(w)  MoRiN.  de  Vita  Bocharti,  p.  5.  Braunius  de  Vest,  gacerd.  Lib.  n 
c.  viii.  p.  637. 


SAMUEL  BOCHAKT. 


l59 


ot  which  such  as  could  be  recovered  by  the  dihgence  of  the 
editors,  have  been  pubhshed  in  the  third  volume  of  his  collect- 
ed works. 

Of  these  it  will  be  impossible  to  give  any  detailed  account. 
They  are  fifty-three  in  number ;  five  being  letters  to  Saumaise 
and  Vossius,  and  the  remainder  critical  remarks  upon  several 
works,  and  dissertations  of  various  length  addressed  to  several 
of  his  friends,  principally  in  answer  to  queries  put  to  him,  or 
in  compliance  with  requests  for  assistance  in  the  examination 
of  particular  topics.     Most  of  these  were  hastily  written,  on 
the  spur  of  the  moment,  and  many  of  them  in  French,  whence 
they  have  been  translated  into  Latin  by  the  editors.      Of 
course,  they  afford  no  fair  specimens  of  the  abilities  of  the 
writer.     Yet,  such  as  they  are,   scarcely  any  one  of  them 
can  be  read  without  deriving  from  it  some  curious  remark 
or  profitable  information,  often  on   subjects  of  even  more 
general  interest  than  those  discussed  in  the  larger  works. 

The  most  important  are  ;  the  Notes  on  the  work  of  Stephen 
OF  Byzantium  Us^i  IIoXswv ;  the  Defence  of  the  Geographia 
Sacra  against  some  objections  urged  by  Saumaise  ;  the  Let- 
ter on  Regal  and  Ecclesiastical  power,  already  noticed  ;  the 
treatise  on  the  coming  of  Eneas  to  Italy ;  the  letter  in  ex- 
planation of  the  article  of  the  Apostle's  Creed,  "  He  descend- 
ed into  Hell ;"  and  a  treatise  on  the  temptation  of  Eve  by 
the  Serpent,  addressed  to  James  Capel. 

The  dissertation  on  the  landing  of  Eneas  ui  Italy,  in  which 
Bochart  asserts  that  no  such  event  did  ever  happen,  and 
at  the  same  time,  excuses  Virgil  for  having  founded  his 
poem  on  the  popular  error,  was  written  at  the  request  of  the 
poet  Segrais,  in  French,  and  published  as  a  prefatory  ap- 
pendage to  the  translation  of  the  iEneid  by  that  writer.  John 
Schepfer,  a  friend  of  Bochart,  translated  it  into  Latin,  and 
pubhshed  it  separately,  at  Hamburg,  in  12mo.,  in  1672. 
Thence  it  was  adopted  into  the  collected  works  of  the  au- 
thor, (x) 


(x)  See  a  list  of  the  authors  who  have  espoused  the  opinions  main- 


160  MilMOIKS  Ot 

The  brief  essay  on  the  *  Descent  into  Hell/  contained  in 
a  letter  to  Tapin,  I  have  Httle  hesitation  in  pronouncing 
the  very  best  among  all  our  author's  w^orks.  There  is  less 
display  of  learning,  but  there  is  a  condensation  of  fact,  and 
sohdity  of  judgment,  which  are  of  far  more  value.  Excepting 
a  single  argument,  with  which  the  piece  concludes,  it  con- 
tains nothing  which  is  not  in  the  greatest  degree  pertinent  to 
the  subject,  and  important.  All  the  erroneous  views  are 
treated  of,  and  solidly  refuted,  in  a  few  sentences.  His  own  is 
given,  and  established  by  cogent  proofs,  in  as  little  space.  It 
is  perhaps  the  best  compendious  essay  among  the  multitudes 
which  have  been  written  on  the  subject,  (y) 

To  pass  an  accurate  opinion  upon  the  literary  character  of 
Boo  HART,  and  especially  on  his  merits  as  a  Biblical  Philolo- 
gist, would  be  a  work  of  no  small  difficulty.  There  are, 
however,  a  few  traits  which  can  hardly  pass  unnoticed,  and 
indeed,  have  been  made  ground  of  serious  objection  against 
his  writings. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  charge  him  with  an  excessive  dif- 
fiiseness  and  discursiveness.  His  learning  is  a  deluge  rather 
than  a  noble,  fertihzing  stream.  He  buries  his  subject  under  a 
massy  pile  of  erudition  when  he  should  have  raised  a  substan- 
tial and  convenient  structure.  His  works  are  magazines  of 
learning,  to  which  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  add  ;  but  whence 
very  much  might  be  subtracted,  and  the  reader  be  rather  a 
gainer  than  injured  by  the  operation,  {z)      Simon  long  ago 


tained  by  Bochart  in  this  little  treatise,  and  an  account  of  the  answer 
to  it  by  T.  Ryck,  in  Fabricii  Bibliographia  Antiquaria.  p.  216. 

(y)  It  is  mentioned  by  Dorn,  Biblioth.  Theol.  Crit.  Part  ii.  p.  451. 
who,  however,  misrepresents  B.  as  maintaining  the  article  to  mean  a 
mere  state  of  death  ;  whereas  B.'s  reasoning  and^tatement  of  his  view 
evidently  include  the  idea  of  place.  It  is  singular  that  Dietelmaier,  in 
in  his  full  list  of  writers  on  this  subject  (Historia  Dogmatis  de  descensu 
Christi  ad  inferos,  Norimb.  12mo.  1741,)  should  have  passed  by  this 
essay  of  Bochart. 

(s)  A  single  instance  of  a  fault  so  constantly  recurring,  will  suffice.-- 
In  treating  of  locusts,  he  observes  that  they  are  spoken  of  by  Moses  as 
having  four  feet,  while  others,  Aristotle,  for  instance,  mention  six. 


;bAIilUEL  BOCHAHT.  Wt 

objected,  that  "  he  seemed  to  have  desired  rather  to  be  thought 
a  man  of  learning  than  to  be  esteemed  judicious."  (a)  This 
is  in  some  measure  attributable  to  the  spirit  of  the  age  in 
which  he  Hved.  He  did  but  push  a  Httle  farther  a  practice 
which  had  been  already  extensively  adopted  by  those  who 
were  universally  regarded  as  models  of  taste  and  judg- 
ment. To  make  a  proper  allowance  for  his  errors  in  this  re- 
spect, we  must  carry  ourselves  back  to  his  days.  The  fashion, 
then  so  prevalent,  of  pouring  forth  the  whole  treasures  of  the 
author,  old  and  new,  upon  his  unfortunate  reader,  is,  happily 
for  the  cause  of  learning,  now  extinct.  The  division  of  la- 
bour is  better  understood  by  the  literary  world;  and,  in  general, 
a  writer  who  pretends  to  treat  a  particular  subject,  does  not 
expect  the  attention  of  his  readers  to  more  than  is  strictly  re- 
levant to  that  subject.  Divines  and  critics  have  recognized 
the  truth  of  the  adage  *  ars  longa,  vita  brevis,'  and  are  fain  to 
relinquish  their  claim  to  years  for  the  study  of  a  single  work. 
But,  under  any  circumstances,  this  fault  in  the  works  of 
BocHART  would  admit  of  some  extenuation  from  a  view  of  the 
nature  of  their  object.  The  author  was  almost  the  first  in 
his  track,  and  was  obliged  to  explore  his  way  more  carefully, 
and  more  sedulously  guard  his  outposts,  than  would  have  been 


This  apparent  difference  he  easily  reconciles,  by  observing  that  Moses 
expressly  distinguishes  the  long  legs  used  for  leaping,  from  the  feet ;  and 
that  this  distinction  is  also  recognized  by  Aristotle,  while,  for  me- 
thod's sake,  he  counts  them  as  feet.  Here  Bochart's  task  was  done. 
But  he  goes  on  to  say,  that  what  Aristotle  in  this  passage  calls  okXriKci 
t*6gta,,  he  elsewhere  terms  »r>»(fat\iat.  This  gives  occasion  to  correct 
ScALioER,  who  had  derived  that  word  from  vhS'av  (salire),  and  to  point 
out  its  true  meaning,  viz.  helms,  (of  a  ship).  Then,^  to  show  the  rea- 
son for  the  application  of  the  name,  he  investigates  the  resemblance  be- 
tween the  long  legs  of  a  locust  and  the  helm  of  a  vessel.  Thus  he  in- 
troduces a  disquisition  on  the  rudders  of  the  ancients,  which  occupies 
half  a  folio  page ;  and  in  the  course  of  which  he  makes  one  quotation  in 
Ethiopic,  five  in  Greek,  and  seven  from  Latin  authors !  referring  the 
reader  at  the  close  for  more  to  a  work  by  Scheffer-  Hiero25oic.  Lib* 
IV.  c.  I.  0pp.  Tom.  II.  p.  452.  s. 

(o),  Simon  Hist,  Crit.  du  Vieux  Test.  Liv,  iii.  c.  xx.  p,  481.  ed  Rot 
erd. 

^1 


162^  MEMOIRS  OP 

necessary  had  he  merely  followed  a  beaten  route.  Much  cf^ 
his  discursive  matter  has  some  bearing,  though  perhaps  intri- 
cate and  remote,  upon  the  proofs  of  his  positions,  if  not  di- 
rectly upon  the  subject  under  discussion  ;  and  much  that  now 
appears  unnecessary  was  by  no  means  useless  to  the  accom* 
plishment  of  his  design.  It  was  prudent,  too,  in  offering  to 
the  public  such  a  mass  of  original  views  and  interpretations ; 
and  in  levying  war  upcm  so  many  errors,  venerable  for  their 
age  and  formidable  from  their  universality,  to  use  every 
mean  of  pleasing  and  convincing.  Variety  of  tastes  was  to 
be  consulted.  Allowance  was  to-be  made  for  the  different 
effects  of  argument  upon  different  minds.  The  author- s 
statements  were  to  be  defended  at  every  point,  that  not  the 
smallest  cranny  might  afford  an  advantage  to  those  who 
should  be  disposed  to  attack  what  they  might  consider  as- 
his  presumptuous  innovations,  {b) 

Another  prominent  fault  is  his  fondness  for  recondite  learn- 
ing and  minute  disquisition.  He  cannot  resist  the  temptation 
to  display  to  the  admiring  gaze  of  others  the  treasures  which' 
he  has  so  hardly  earned,  however  forced  the  occasion.  He 
seems  to  measure  the  value  of  his  matter  by  its  remoteness- 
from  the  range  of  common  knowledge  ;  and  to  suppose  that' 
the  rarity  of  an  author  on  the  difficulty  of  his  style  or  lan- 
guage will  amply  excuse  the  improper  length,  or  unnecessary 
introduction,  of  an  extract.  The  necessity  of  close  and  ac- 
curate investigation,  and  long  habits  of  minute  research,  had 
accustomed  him  to  attach  importance  to  the  minutest  points, 
which  he  discusses  as  gravely  and  with  as  much  prolixity  as 
if  the  safety  of  the  literary  world  depended  on  them.  Hence 
the  same  acute,  but  often  captious  and  hasty  writer,  who  has 
been  already  quoted  as  a  censor  of  Boo  hart,  takes  occasion 
to  sneer  at  him  as  a  mere  grammatist  and  dictionary-hunter, 
who  loves  to  descant  upon  bare  play  of  words  and  changes 
of  letters,  and  whose  bulky  works  would  shrink  exceedingly 


(6)  The  author  evidently  betrays  a  fear  of  such  attacks  in  Praef.  ad 
Phaleg,  0pp.  Tom.  in.  p.  43.  s.  and  especially  Praef.  ad  Hierozoicon, 
Opp,  Tom.  I-  p.  62.  s. 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  IBS 

if  they  were  trimmed  of  every  thing  that  is  good  for  no- 
thing, (c) 

As  to  the  charge  of  ^  grammatism'  the  critical  Pere  Simon 
can  hardly  have  been  in  earnest,  vvrhen  he  found  fauh  with 
the  grammatical  learning  of  our  author.  Whether  he  were  or 
not,  the  defence  of  Bochart  by  Villamandy,  the  editor  of 
his  collected  works,  is  well  enough.  *'  It  is  true,"  says  he, 
"  that  the  numerous  explanations  of  Hebrew,  Rabbinical, 
Greek,  and  other  words,  which  occur  in  his  works,  display 
much  grammatical  knowledge.  But  it  is  that  kind  of  know- 
ledge which  relates  to  the  true  force  and  signification  of 
words,  and  to  their  genuine  origin  and  use  ;  and  which  is 
gained  only  by  an  accurate  perusal  of  the  best  writers  in  the 
language.  Such  is  not  the  knowledge  of  the  mere  gramma- 
list  who  trifles  with  the  endless  genealogies  and  forms  of 
grammar,  and  is  for  ever  involved  in  doubt  by  the  intricacy  of 
his  own  disputations."  {d) 

The  assertion  that  Bochart  was  indebted  to  '  dictionaries ' 
for  his  multifarious  learning  deserves  a  contemptuous  denial. 
Every  page  of  his  works  shows  that  he  derived  his  knowledge 
of  the  languages  in  which  he  was  so  eminently  skilled,  from 
the  fountain  heads.  He  is  continually  coirecting  errors,  or 
supplying  deficiencies,  of  modern  lexicographers,  especially  the 
Arabic.  It  would  be  diflicult  to  adduce  a  single  instance  in 
which  he  has  depended  on  the  authority  of  a  dictionary,  except 
it  be  one  written  in  the  language  itself,  as  those  of  Jauhari 
in  Arabic,  or  Hesychius  in  Greek,  to  which  no  sober  critic 
would  object. 

But  as  to  trifling,  and,  so  to  speak,  conglomeration  of  un- 
necessary learning,  it  is  impossible  to  justify  om-  author.  Oc- 
casionally we  cannot  avoid  imagining  that  he  selects  the  least 
obvious  interpretations  of  a  passage,  that  he  may  bring  his 


(c)  Simon,  Reponse  aux  Sentimens  de  quelque  Theologiens  de  Hol- 
lande,  Liv.  in  p.  18.  ed.  Bpilerd — Reponse  a  la  Defense  des  Sentimens, 
«&c.  p.  72,  p.  74. 

(d)  Such  is  the  substance  of  p.  5,  U  4.  of  Praei^  \\x  Tom.  m.  .Opp, 

•BOCHAKTI.' 


fl6t  MEMOIRS  or 

immense  erudition  to  bear,  in  its  establishment,  (e)  Elsewhere 
he  dallies,  through  whole  pages,  with  the  most  absurd  hypo- 
theses, that  he  may  enjoy  the  Titanic  pleasure  of  heaving  a 
mountain  to  ci-ush  a  mouse.  (/ )  The  warmest  admirer  of 
BocHART  must  allow,  that  his  voluminous  writings  would  well 
admit  of  much  retrenchment. 

Another  serious  charge  against  Bochart,  which  must  be 
admitted  to  have  some  foundation,  is,  that  he  indulged  to  an 


(e)  For  example.  In  Isa.  vi.  6.  he  would  render  nS^*!,  **  heattd 
stone;  relying  on  ancient  authorities  (neither  numerous  nor  strong)  for 
that  meaning  of  the  word ;  and  then  brings  vast  quantities  of  historical 
reading  to  show  that  heated  stones  were  used  in  ancient  times  for  cooking, 
&c.,  and  therefore  might  have  been  upon  the  altar  for  the  purpose  of 
consuming  flesh  put  there.  But  after  all  he  fails  in  showing  the  very 
point  to  be  proved — that  it  was  customary  to  use  heated  stones  in  saeri- 
Jices,  or  to  place  them  on  altars ;  and  he  does  not  perceive  that  his  far- 
fetched rendering  takes  away  a  great  deal  of  the  beauty  of  the  bold 
figure  of  the  prophet.  It  is  astonishing  that  Simok,  DdDERL£iN,  Datbk, 
and  even  Gesbnius,  should  have  admitted  implicitly  this  rendering.— > 
HisRoz.  P.  I.  L.  n.  c.  xxxiii. 

(/)  An  egregious  instance  of  such  trifling  occurs  in  the  Hierozoicon, 
¥.  11.  B.  II.  c.  xi.,  entitled  '  God's  providence  towards  crows.'  In  th* 
first  place  he  states  the  allegorial  interpretation  given  to  certain  passages 
of  Scripture  relating  to  '  young  ravens  '  by  some  of  the  early  fathers, 
who  made  the  *  ravens '  Gentiles^  the  ^  young  ravens '  The  Christian  church, 
formed  principally  from  among  the  heathen.  This  he  gravely  refutes 
at  some  length.  Then  follows  a  literal  exposition  given  by  Solomon 
Jarchi,  Kimchi,  and  other  Jewish,  and  many  Arabian  writers.  They 
say  that  ravens,  on  the  first  hatching  of  their  youn*:,  are  so  disgusted 
with  the  appearance  of  the  little  animals,  as  to  fly  away  and  leave  them ; 
and  that  the  young  birds  uttering  their  plaintive  cries  upon  being  press- 
ed with  hunger,  the  Deity,  in  pity  on  them,  creates  from  their  dung  in 
the  nest,  great  abundance  of  lice,  which  run  into  the  open  mouths  of 
the  nestlings.  With  all  possible  seriousness  our  author  girds  himself 
for  the  work  of  showing  this  to  be  an  untenable  exegesis.  The  au- 
thorities by  which  it  is  supported  are  quoted,  lo  the  number  of  three 
citations  in  Hebrew,  four  in  Arabic,  two  in  Greek,  and  three  in  Latin. 
In  answer,  he  undertakes  to  prove  that  it  is  not  the  habit  of  birds  to  foul 
their  own  nests;— that  it  is  not  likely  that  the  ravens  think  their  young 
ones  ugly ; — and  that  there  is  no  unquestionable  evidence  of  their  leaving 
them  in  their  vexation.  During  this  process  he  makes  eleven  more  quo- 
ti^tions  from  Epicharmius,  Cicero,  Aristotle,  Pliny,  JEi.iav,  Chalfho- 
T^ACHMAR,  and  Servihs,    The  whole  occupie.<5  three  large  folio  pages. 


SAMUEL  BOCUART.  165 

excessive  degree  in  conjecture  and  unwarranted  hypothesis. 
Much  may  be  said  in  palliation  of  this  fault,  if  such  it  be.  The 
subjects  of  his  books  were  such  as  seldom  to  admit  even  of 
the  moral  demonstration  of  probability ;  and  in  many  cases, 
the  best  guesser  is  the  wisest  man.  Many  of  his  conjectures 
have  since  been  fully  confirmed.  Others  are  as  near  the 
truth  as  the  scanty  data  in  existence  will  permit  us  to  arrive. 
Even  of  those  which  are  palpably  incorrect,  no  few  command 
our  admiration  by  their  ingenuity  and  the  learning  displayed 
in  their  support,  (g) 

The  only  remaining  objection  which  has  been  made  against 
our  author,  is,  his  overweening  attachment  to  etymology.  Si- 
mon passes  some  bitter  jests  upon  this  foible,  undertaking  to 
show,  by  some  of  Bochart's  irrefragable  proofs,  that  the 
Borak,  or  winged  animal  on  which  Mahomet's  followers  feign 
that  their  Prophet  rode,  was  nothing  else  than  a  *  she-ass,'  in 
French  bourrique,  (h)  It  is  true  that  Bochakt  did  place  too 
much  reliance  upon  etymological  reasoning ;  and  he  was  even 
reprehended  for  it  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  of  his  con- 
temporaries, {i)  In  his  work  on  Animals,  this  is  easily  ac- 
counted for  by  his  opinions  respecting  the  derivation  of  He- 
brew names  of  animals  from  Adam,  and  their  consequent  ne- 


(g)  His  explanation  of  the  Egyptian  mythological  history  of  Osiris 
and  Typho,  from  the  history  of  Moses,  is  a  splendid  instance.  There  is 
scarcely  room  for  a  doubt  that  the  whole  will,  in  the  more  thorough 
knowledge  of  Egyptian  antiquity  which  is  now  dawning  on  the  world, 
appear  to  be  a  mere  offspring  of  fancy. .  Yet,  as  given  by  Bochart 
(HiEROZ.  P.  I.  L.  n.  c.  34.)  and  as  well  epitomized  by  Wixsius  (Egyp- 
tiacarum  Lib.  in.  c.  v.  p.  216.  216.  ss.^  there  is  hardly  a  part  which 
doe3  not  seem  highly  probable,  or  an  inference  which  does  not  possess 
a  show  of  adequate  support  by  historical  and  most  ingenious  etymologi- 
cal argument,— This  tracing  events  of  Jewish  history  in  heathen  mytho- 
logy was  a  favourite  employment  of  our  author.  He  finds  Moses  in 
Bacchus,  Deborah  in  the  Sphinx,  &c.,  &,c.  This  fault  was  common  in 
his  age.    Huet  is  well  known  to  have  carried  it  to  excessive  lengths. 

(h)  Reponse  a  la  Defense  des  Sentimens  de  quelques  Theologiens  de 
HoUande.  p.  72. 

(i)  Hurt  is  said  to  hare  addressed  a  letter  to  him,  containing  very 
-sensible  remarks  on  the  subject.    Aikin's  Memoirs  of  Huet.  h.  492. 


166  MEMOmS  OF 

cessary  relation  to  the  nature  of  the  animals  theniselves.  In  his 
Sacred  Geography,  too,  the  scarcity  of  other  evidence  would 
naturally  lead  him  to  attach  undue  importance  to  that  derived 
from  etymology.  He  is  rather  to  be  pitied  than  blamed  for 
this  erroneous  predilection,  although  it  must  be  admitted  thart. 
it  detracts  in  no  small  degi-ee  from  the  utihty  of  his  labours  to 
those  who  would  build  upon  surer  gi'ound. 

As  an  interpreter  of  Scripture,  Boch  art  is,  to  say  the  least, 
respectable.  His  general  views  of  the  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion, are,  with  the  exception  of  his  attachment  to  etymology, 
for  the  most  part  good.  Many  of  the  most  important  of 
these  rules  are  clearly  stated  and  well  defended  in  different 
parts  of  his  writings ;{j)  and  most  of  them  are  well  exem- 
plified in  the  Preface  to  the  Hierozoicon,  where  he  was  forced 
to  study  brevity,  (k)  But  he  is  by  no  means  consistent  or 
uniform  in  his  adherence  to  those  rules. 

His  conclusions  are  sometimes  hastily  or  incorrectly  drawn, 
or  founded  on  insufficient  premises.  A  partial  glance  at  the 
evidence  before  him  seems  to  have  seized  upon  the  most  pro- 
minent, while  other  portions,  conjointly  of  more  importance, 
are  passed  over.  (/) 


{j)  The  reasons  against  an  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  history  ot" 
the  temptation  of  Eve  are  well  stated,  De  Serpente  Tentatore.  Opp. 
III.  933 ;  those  against  interpretation  from  the  event,  p.  836  ; — against 
forcing  tropes,  860.  In  the  same  piece,  the  determining  of  the  scope  of 
a  passage  from  its  context  is  well  exemplified,  p.  904 ;  and  the  means 
of  ascertaining  the  usus  loqwndi  are  ably  applied^  p.  906. 

(fe)  Let  any  one  compare  Bochart's  interpretation  of  Prov.  vii.  22. 
(HiJtROZ.P.  1  Lib.  III.  c.  Ivi.  fin.)  and  his  happy  conjecture  respecting  the 
present  reading  of  the  Septuagint  in  that  passage,  with  Michaklis*  ar- 
ticle on  the  same  passage  ;  Suppl.  ad  Lex.  Heb.  1898,  and  the  manifest 
superiority  of  the  former,  will  show  the  high  ground  which  he  at  least 
occasionally  takes  as  a  biblical  interpreter. 

{l)  VoRSTius  (De  Hebraismis  N.  T.  c.  xxiii.  Vol.  ii.  p.  33.)  shows  the 
fallacy  of  an  interpretation  of  Bochart  by  which  he  attempted  to  con- 
firm his  views  (sufficiciently  established  on  other  grounds)  respecting 
the  queen  of  Saba.  She  is  said  to  have  come  asro  jrtptirccv  T»f  yiis' 
Bochart  catches  at  this,  and  argues  that  her  kingdom  must  have  been 
in  Arabia,  as  that  is  bounded  by  the  sea,  while  Ya$t  districts  extend  be- 


SAMUEL  BOCHART.  J6T 

He  to6  readily  indulges  in  conjectural  emendations  of  pas- 
sages in  which  the  present  reading  presents  difficulties  to  him 
insuperable,  or  offers  an  obstacle  to  a  favourite  hypothesis. 
The  Scriptures  themselves  are  by  no  means  exempted  from 
the  exercise  of  this  wayward  propensity,  (m)  It  is  true  that 
his  emendations  are  sometimes  very  happy,  and  throw  unex- 
pected and  vivid  light  upon  a  passage  seemingly  utterly  ob- 
scure, (n)  It  is  also  true  that  he  had  the  sanction  of  the 
greatest  critics  of  his  age  in  the  employment  of  such  means 


yond  Ethiopia.  It  is  impossible  that  he  could  have  been  ignorant  of 
the  common  application  of  the  phrase  mpairet  mc  yue  to  countries 
hot  bounded  by  the  ocean,  which  is  clearly  shown  by  Vorstius  ;  and 
yet  his  eagerness  for  proof  drew  off  his  attention  from  that  fact,  and 
caused  him  to  rely  upon  a  worthless  argument.  Very  similar,  and  equal- 
ly egregious,  failures  in  exegetica!  argument  may  be  found  corrected  by 
Vorstius,  De  Hebraismis,  r.  393.  s.  and  Brynaeus,  de  Calceis  Hebrae- 
orum,  p.  8.  ss.  158.  ss.  and  242.  ss. 

(m)  So  HiEROz.  P.  i.  Lib,  ii.  c.  xliii.  Bochart  agrees  with  Beza  (and 
they  are  followed  by  Benson,  Doddridge,  fcc.)  in  supposing  the  word 
AC/nfx^,  Ac.  vii.  16.,  to  be  an  interpolation  by  some  ignorant  transcriber, 
who  thought  the  verb  mnoretro  needed  a  nominative,  and  from  indistinct 
recollection  supplied  'Abraham.' 

Jebb,  (Sacred  Literature,  p.  324,)  cites-  Bochart  as  agreeing  with 
Tana^uil  Faber  in  a  still  bolder  mutilation  of  the  text  of  Scripture, 
viz.  representing  Js-ig  yd^  rietyttQS  tai^ai  rU  xj  rc^ft*  ttTroBeivilr,  (Rom. 
V.  7.)  as  a  marginal  gloss. — But  I  have  not  met  with  this  in  the  works 
of  Bochart,  and  find  no  mention  of  it  in  the  indices. 

Something  nearly  approaching  to  this  conjectural  licence  appears 
HiEROz.  P.  II.  Lib.  II.  c.  xii.  where  the  author  is  willing  to  reverse  the 
present  reading  of  the  Hebrew  text,  in  favour  of  the  Greek  version,  on 
the  authority  of  a  Grecian  mythological  fable,  and  the  use  of  a  term 
among  the  Arabian  astrologers:  virtually  admitting  such  testimony  in 
evidence  respecting  an  event  2000  years  previous ! 

(n)  Such  is  that  by  which  he  accounts  for  an  apparently  enormous 
l)lunder  in  the  Sibylline  Oracles,  placing  Ararat  in  Phrygia  Niger ;  by 
changing  Mexatirw into  Kex«i»«c,  and  referring  it  to  Celene,  afterwards 
Apamj£a,  called  for  some  unknown  reason  K/CaToc .— Phaleg.  P.  i. 
Lib.  III.  c.  xiii.  See  Saurin  Diss.  Hist.  ix.  p.  115.  s.  and  compare  the 
confirmation  subsequently  given  by  the  medal,  lb.  p.  132.  ss.— Most  of 
the  investigations  respecting  the  ancient  Punic,  in  Part  ii.  of  the  Sacred 
Geography,  partake  largely  of  the  character  of  conjectural  emendations^ 
and  roust  be  allowed,  as  such,  to  possess  rare  merit. 


I6B-  MEMOIRS  OP  SAMUEL  B06HART. 

ef  arriving  at  the  sense  of  a  difficult  passage  ;  and  that,  with 
regard  to  profane  authors,  the  practice  has  been  prevalent 
to  an  extent  only  not  universal.  Still,  the  strict  rules  of  exe- 
gesis will  not  warrant  it :  much  less  can  its  results  be  used 
as  evidence  in  historical  research,  or  as  *  media '  in  the  exa- 
mination of  other  passages ;  to  both  which  uses  they  are  not 
unfrequently  applied  by  our  author. 

Lastly,  he  is  not  always  nice  in  his  choice  of  proofs  and 
Scriptural  authorities.  Passages  to  which  it  is  scarcely  to= 
be  doubted  that  he  would  have  given  the  correct  interpretation 
upon  a  professed  examination,  he  often  cites  in  a  sense  very 
foreign  from  the  actual  import.  Who,  for  instance,  would,  on 
due  reflection,  bring  forward  Rom.  x.  67  afe  a  *  ratio  non  con- 
temnenda '  for  interpreting  the  ninth  article  of  the  Creed,  of  an 
abode  in  the  state  of  death  ?  Yet  that  does  Bochart,  Gpp. 
iu.987. 

To  conclude  this  extended,  yet  imperfect,  sketch:— the 
works  of  Bochart  have  by  no  means  survived  their  useful- 
ness or  reputation.  They  are  yet  treasures  of  philosophical 
learning,  which  may  be  used  to  no  small  advantage  by  the  in- 
dustrious and  discriminating  student.  The  faults  of  their 
writer  were  the  faults  of  his  age  ;  but  his  excellencies  are  his 
own,  and  are  such  as  will  endure. 

The  praise  of  unparalleled  industry,  almost  unlimited  eru- 
dition, great  ingenuity,  and  no  small  degree  of  independence 
as  an  interpreter  of  Scripture,  wiU  be  awarded  to  Bochart 
as  long  as  Biblical  Philology  shall  be  studied  as  a  sciencCo 
His  etymologies,  conjectures,  and  occasional  lapses  in  inter- 
pretation, will  be  forgotten,  or  readily  forgiven,  by  every  one 
qualified  to  judge  of  the  true  value  of  his  works. 


DISSERTATION 


ON  THE  MEANING  OF 

^^THE  KINGDOM   OF   HEAVEN'' 

IN   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 


BY  GOTTLOB  CHRISTIAN  STORK. 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THK  LATIN, 

BY  MANTON  EASTBURN,  M.  A. 

RECTOR  OF  THK  CHURCH  OF  THE  ASCENSION,  NEW-YORK. 


22 


DISSERTATION, 


That  the  expectation  of  some  heavenly  kingdom  had  been 
long  entertained  by  Christ's  hearers,  may  be  even  inferred  from 
the  circumstance, »  that  both  our  Lord  himself,  {a)  and  John 


(«)  Matt.  iv.  17. 


1  The  extracts  made  by  Wetstein  from  the  Rabbinical  writings,  at 
Matt.  III.  2.  are  all  of  them,  I  think,  irrelevant.  To  this  conclusion  I 
have  been  led,  in  the  first  place,  by  considering  the  period  at  which  these 
authors  lived :  for  though  we  may  allow  the  earlier  of  them  in  particular, 
and  those  who  approach  nearest  to  the  apostolic  age,  to  be  brought  for- 
ward for  the  purpose  of  illustrating  and  confirming  ancient  authorities, 
yet  with  Keil  (Hist,  Dogmatis  de  regno  Messiae  Christi  et  apostolorum 
aetate.  ad  iliustranda  N.  T.  loca  accommodate  exposita.  Lips.  1781. 
p.  6.)  [  See  Keil,  Opilsc.  Acad.  p.  29.  Lips.  1821.— Tr.  ]  I  am 
reluctant,  for  many  reasons,  to  receive  them  as  witnesses.  The  con- 
sideration, however,  which  weighs  the  most  with  me,  is,  that  the 
Rabbinical  modes  of  expression,  as  has  been  observed  by  Koppe, 
(Vol.  I.  N.  T.  gr.  p.  227.)  are  exceedingly  different  from  that  idea  of 
the  heavenly  kingdom,  which  is  the  object  of  my  inquiries.  The  sub- 
ject which  I  propose  to  discuss  is  some  heavenly  kingdom,  which  was 
expected  in  course  of  time ;  whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  those  Rabbinical 
writers  usually  speak  of  that  ancient  heavenly  government  naaintainetJ 


ii.Z  THE  MEANING  OF 

the  Baptist  before  him,(^)  no  sooner  made  their  pubHc  appeal^ 
ance,  than  they  immediately  touched  upon  this  topic  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  as  one  that  was  quite  famihar  to  all ;  and 
that  furnished  an  extremely  suitable  argument  by  which  to  per- 
suade their  countrymen  to  repentance.  And  the  testimony  of 
JosEPHUs,^  confirmed  thus  far  by  a  comparison  with  the  sa- 
cred books,  leaves  us  no  room  for  doubt  respecting  the  sources 
whence  the  Jews  derived  their  expectation  ;  since,  from  the 
time  of  David,  who  peculiarly  became  possessor  of  a  kingdom 
divinely  conferred,^  we  see  promised  a  certain  king,  distin- 
guished by  many  appellations,  who  was  to  be  of  the  stock  of 

(6)  Matl.  in.  Q. 


over  all  things  (the  monarchy,  as  it  is  called  by  Philo,  p.  812  ss.  ed.  Fr.) 
by  Jehovah,  the  one  true  God,  who,  particularly  in  the  later  periods  of 
the  Jewish  commonwealth,  was  usually  distinguished  from  the  idols  made 
in  the  land,  by  the  name  of  heavenly  king,  ("Dan.  iv.  34,)  and  God  of 
heaven ;  (ii.  18. 28.)  and  by  becoming  subject  to  the  same,  understand  the 
duty  of  acknowledging  one  God,  of  professing  his  name  by  reciting  the 
formula  in  Deut;  vi.  4,  and  of  reverently  keeping  his  commandments. 
i  do  not  however  deny,  that  the  term  kingdom  of  heaven  is  perhaps,  in 
the  N-  T.  itself,  though  very  rarely,  applied  to  the  perpetual  government 
of  God  over  all  things;  (Ps.  cm.  19.  cxlv.  11  ss.  1.  Tim.  i.  17.  vi.  15.) 
so  that  Matt,  xviii.  23,  may  be  thus  rendered :  "  that  function  of  the  divine 
government,  by  which  forgiveness  is  extended  to  any  one,  is  regulated 
by  tlie  same  principle  which  an  earthly  king  pursued,  who,  &c.,  i.  e. 
'Qod  iv.  35.)  proceeds  in  like  manner  with  a  king,  who,  i&c." 

2  L.  VI.  de  bell.  Jud.  c.  5.  $.4.      Add  Tacitu^,^  L.  v.  Histor.  c.  13. 

3  Saul  was  made  king,  it  is  true,  by  divine  authority ;  but  this  was 
a  thing  extorted  by  the  importunity  of  the  people,  (i.  Sam.  viii — x. 
XII.  12  s.)  David»  on  the  contrary,  by  the  divine  choice,  was  not  only 
made  king,  (xiii.  14.  xv.  28.  svi.  I.  Acts,  xiii.  22.)  but  was  also  ho- 
nored with  the  privilege  (ii.  Sara.  vii.  II  ss.)  of  transmitting  an  heredi- 
tary kingdom  to  his  descendants.  For  though  God  could  not  but  dis- 
approve of  (i.  Sam.  viii.  7.)  the  errtreaties  of  the  Israelites  for  a  king,  to 
the  absolute  rejection  of  himself;  yat  afterwards  he  signified,  on  another 
occasion,  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  designs  of  his  Providence  which 

.opposed  the  administration,  by  human  instntmentality,  of  that  kingdom^ 
which,  being  his  oim,  (xii.  12.)  was  therefore  heavenly,  or  divine.  To 
what  those  designs  had  reference,  both  the  history  of  David's  progeny,, 
invested  with  a  heavenly,  or  divine  kingdom,  far  more  august  than  that 
of  David  or  Solomon,  and  the  prophecies  of  the  O  T-  themselves,  clean- 
ly explain. 


**THE  KINGDOM  OP  HEAVEN."  173^^ 

Bavid,*  far  superior  to  all  kings,  (c)  lorcf  not  only  of  the  Jews, 
but  of  all  nations,  (c?)  everlasting,  (c)  to  be  exalted  to  a  govern- 
ment altogether  divine,  (/)  but,  previously  to  the  attainment 
of  that  dignity,  {g)  was  to  endure  the  last  extremity  of  suffer- 
ing for  the  salvation  of  many,  (h) 

This  kingdom  therefore  of  the  Messiah,  {i)  since  itisbotb 
divinely^  conferred,  (y )  and  is  itself  divine,  (^)  has  obtained: 

(c)  Ps.  Lxxxix,  28.  lu  (d)  Dan.  vii.  13  s. 

(e)  II.  Sam.  vii.  13.  16.   Ps.  lxxxix.  30.  37  s.    Isai.  uii.  10.    Dan.  vii.  14. 
(/)  Ps.  ex.  1.  (g)  Isai.  LU.  13.  (h)  liii.  3  ss. 

0)  Epfi.  V.  5.   Miatt.  XI u.  41.    Luke  xxii.  30.    Rev.  i.  9.   Matt.  xv.  34.  40. 

Rev.  1.  5.  XVII.  14.  xix.  16. 
(j)  II.  Sara.  VII,  12. 14.  Ps.  ii.  6.  7.  comp.  Heb.  v.  5.    (k)  Ps.  ex.  1. 


*  When  Davich  thou^t  of  building  a  house  to  the  honor  of  God, 
(ii.  Sam.  VII.  5  ss.)  God  promised  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  would 
sooner  build  a  house  for  David,  (v.  11.  27.)  i.  e.  bestow  a  family  (v. 
18  s.  25  s.  29.)  upon  him,  (Deut.  xxv.  9.  Exod.  i.  21.)  and  enrich  it 
(Compare  Ps.  lxxxix.  5.  Obss.  gramm.  p.  11.)  with  great  blessings. 
(ii.  Sam.  VII.  29.)  It  is  not  to  be  doubted,  therefore,  that  j^-nr  in  v.  12, 
signifies  the  whole  family  (f\>^)  of  David,  (v.  16.  comp.  Ps.  lxxxix.  37.) 
and  his  posterity  (  o»j3  v.  31.  comp.  ii.  Sam.  vii.  14.  12.)  even  to  a  re- 
mote generation,  v.  19.  But  if  the  reference  is  to  the  whole  family  of 
David,  it  is  certainly  also  allowable  to  ascribe  to  this  family  things, 
which,  though  they  did  not  apply  to  all  and  each  of  the  posterity  of 
David,  yet  certainly  did  to  many  of  them,  as  v.  14,  at  the  end,  or  to  one 
of  them,  as  Solomon,  the  builder  of  the  temple  (v.  13).  We  ought  not 
to  be  surprised,  therefore,  if,  in  ii.  Sam.  v^i.  principal  reference  should 
be  made  to  one  particular  man  (comp.  Dan.  vii.  13),  who  should  be 
singularly  conspicuous  among  all  the  posterity  of  David,  and  give  sta- 
bility to  the  whole  royal  family.  And  as  this  might  very  properly  have 
been  done,  so  it  actually  is  the  fact  that  it  was  ;  as  appears,  on  the  one 
hand,  from  the  consideration,  that,  if  we  except  Christ,  the  offspring  of 
David  was  clearly,  according  to  the  testimony  of  history,  not  placed  in 
that  eternal  (ii.  Sam.  vii.  13.  16.  comp.  with  Ps.  lxxxix.  30.  37  s.)  and 
most  illustrious  (i?.  28.)  kingdom ;  and  as  it  might  have  been  infeiTed, 
moreover,  even  in  David's  time,  from  a  true  interpretation  of  the  divine 
prophecy  contained  in  Ps.  ex.  ii.  For  mention  is  there  made  of  a  cer- 
tain peculiar  king,  placed  by  God  (ii.  6.)  upon  Mount  Sion,  where  Da- 
vid sat ;  the  reference  is,  therefore,  to  some  successor  of  David,  who, 
most  truly  of  all,  should  be  both  the  Son  of  God  (w.  7.  comp.  with 
II.  Sam.  VII.  14),  and  possess  divine  (comp.  i.  Sam.  xii.  12.  note  3.)  or 
heavenly  power  (Ps.  ex.  1.). 

s  Hence  it  is  also  called  the  kingdom  of  the  Father,  Matt.  xxvi. 
29,  VI.  10.   Lulce,  xi.  2.     \ 


174  THE  MEANING  OP 

the  name  of  the  kingdom  of  God  or  ^  of  heaven  ;  sometimes, 
also,  it  is  called  the  kingdom'^  xa-r'  e^oxn^f  as  being  that  which 
was  so  well  known,  both  from  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews^ 
and  from  the  gospel,  of  which  it  is  the  sum  and  substance,*  • 
that  none  could  fail  to  understand  the  true  signification  of  the 
term. 


§.  11. 

It  cannot  indeed  be  denied,  that  the  prevalent  opinion  itt 
the  time  of  Christ  with  regard  to  Messiah's  kingdom,  was 
far  removed  from  the  true  conception  of  its  character  ;  and 
that  the  Jews,  whose  thoughts  entirely  overlooked  those  pro- 
phecies which  related  to  the  death  of  Christ,  and  the  rest  of 
his  humiliation,  (/)  supposed  the  grandeur  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  to  consist  in  temporal  riches  and  power,  and  in  the 
splendor  of  their  capital  f  (m)  and  while  they  were  deceived  by 

(D  Luke,  XXIV.  20  s.  25  s.  xvui.  34.    John,  xii.  34.  (m)  Luke,  xix.  11^ 


6  St.  Matthew,  in  his  Hebrew  gospel,  uses  this  expression  most  fre- 
quently ;  (  e.  g.  Matt.  iv.  17.  x.  7.  xih.  11,  24.  31.  33.  v.  3.  xix.  23.) 
instead  of  which,  both  the  Greek  interpreter  of  St.  Matthew,  (e.  g, 
XII.  28.  XIX.  24.  comp.  fiber  den  zweck  der  evl.  Gesch.  Joh.  p.  369.) 
and  more  frequently  still  the  other  evangelists,  (e.  g.  Mark,  1. 15.  Luke, 
X.  9.  11.  via.  10.  Mark,  iv.  11.  26.  30.  Luke,  xni.  18.  20.  vi.  20.  Mark,  x. 
23 — 25.)  make  mention  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  1  have  no  doubt  that  the 
word  heaven,  in  that  phrase  of  St.  Matthew,  has  the  signification  of  the 
God  of  heaven.  (Dan.  ii.  44.  note  1.)  See  Matt,  xxi.25.  Luke,  xx.  4  s. 
XV.  18.  Dan.  iv.  23.  and  Wetstein,  ad  Matt.  1.  c 

7  Matt.  IV.  23  IX.  35.  xin.  19.  xxiv  14. 

8  Mark,  i.  14.  Luke,  iv.  43.  viii.  1.  ix.  2.  11.  60.  xvi.  16  Acts,  i.  3.  viii. 
12.  XIX  8.  XX  25  xxviii  23  31. 

8  That  the  Jews  connected  the  destruction  of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem 
with  the  commencement  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  cannot  be  proved 
from  the  example  of  the  apostles:  (Matt,  xxiv-  3.)- for  these  had  been 
informed  of  that  catastrophe  not  through  Jewish  instruction,  but  by  the 
prediction  of  our  Lord;  (v.  2.  Luke,  xix.  44.)  and  they  were  so  struck 
with  the  strangeness  of  the  annunciation.,  that  they  thought  the  world 
itself,  with  whose  duration  they  had  connected  that  of  their  temple, 
would  be  overwhelmed  in  the  same  overthrow.  Nor  am  I  at  all  influ- 
enced by  that  passage  of  the  Gemarists,  adduced  by  Lightfoot  at  Matt.  ii. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN. 


175 


the  vain  expectation,  that,  having  expelled  the  Romans,  (n), 
they  should  ere  long  (o)  recover  (p)  and  extend  *°  their  do- 
minion, in  regard  to  the  real  grandeur  and  glory  of  the  Mes- 
siah's reign  {q)  were  shamefully  ignorant,  (r )  We  are  not, 
however,  to  imagine,  that  Jesus  and  his  apostles  were  obliged, 
on  this  account,  either  to  make  no  mention  at  all  of  the 
lungdom  of  heaven,  or  to  maintain  that  notion  of  it  which, 
though  by  no  means  correct,  was  yet  the  only  one  known  to 
their  hearers.  It  may  be  observed,  on  the  one  hand,  that  it 
was  altogether  becoming  in  divine  teachers  generally,  and 
peculiarly  so  in  the  Messiah,  to  restore  that  true  idea  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  which  had  been  pointed  out  by  the  pro- 
phets. But,  besides  this,  the  prevalent  opinion  of  the  Jews 
is  not  to  be  deemed  so  entirely  false,  but  that  they  may  have 
had  some  little  insight,  at  least,  into  that  true  sense,  which  is 
defined  in  the  ancient  prophecies,  and  repeated  in  the  New 
Testament ;  and  that  while,  under  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and 
his  ambassadors,  they  unlearned  what  had  been  superadded 
by  the  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  Jews,  and  discovered 
what  it  had  hidden  from  the  view,  they  may  have  been,  mean- 
while, led  to  a  change  of  views,  by  the  general  (s)  doctrine 


(>i)  Luke,  XXIV.  21,  Acts,  xvii.  7.  John,  xix.  12.  compare  Luke,  xxiii.  2. 
(o)  XIX.  U.  (p)  Acts,  I.  6.  (q)  Matt.  xxii.  43  s. 

(r)  V.  46.  (s)  Comp.  Matt.  xx.  2L  with  Mark,  x.  37. 


1;  since,  as  it  is  allowed  even  by  Keil  himself,  who  lays  great  stress  upon 
the  citation  just  mentioned,  (p.  9.)  [Keil,  Opus.  Acad.  p.  32.  Lips.  1821. 
—  Tr.  ]  the  talmudical  writings  are  to  be  referred  to  not  so  much  for  the 
purpose  of  proof,  as  for  that  of  illustrating  and  confirming  points  already, 
from  other  quarters,  well  ascertained  and  established.  We  have  the 
testimony,  moreover,  of  Josephus,  (see  note  2)  that,  by  the  expectation 
of  the  Messiah,  (comp.  Matt  xxiv-  4  s.  23—26,)  the  Jews  were  rather  led 
into  the  hope,  that  it  might  become  their  duty  to  contend  fiercely  with 
the  Romans  for  their  liberty,  city,  and  temple.  Other  traces  of  the 
opinion  respecting  the  wonderful  security  of  the  temple,  are  to  be  found 
in  Acts,  VI.  11  ss;  and  in  Josephus,  L.  vi.  de  bell.  Jud.  c  2.  $.  1. 

1 0  See  several  well-known  passages  of  Josephus,  Tacitus  (note  2,) 
and  Suetonius  (in  Vespasian,  4). 


I're 


THE  MEANING  01' 


which  they  held,  concerning  the  great  benefits  they  Xvei'e  lo 
receive  from  that  king  of  theirs,  {t)  who  was  expected  from  the 
family  of  David,  (w)  But  let  us  turn  for  information  to  the  New 
Testament  itself;  from  which  it  seems  to  me  to  be  clearly  esta* 
blished,  that  so  far  Were  Jesus  and  his  apostles  from  accommo- 
dating themselves  to  the  Jewish  opinion  concerning  Christ's 
kingdom,  that,  on  the  other  hand,  they  reduced  it  strictly 
to  the  standard  of  truth,  and  of  the  ancient  prophecies.* 


§.  III. 

1.  The  commencement  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Upon  one  topic,  the  subject  indeed  of  ancient  prophecy,  {v) 
but  more  than  any  other  overlooked  by  the  Jews,  Jesus  and 
the  apostles  were  so  much  the  more  particular  in  their  in- 
structions ;  setting  forth  the  multiplied  griefs,  and  painful 
punishment,  that  were  to  be,  or  had  already  been  endured  by 
Jesus,  previously  to  the  occupancy  of  that  promised  heavenly 
dominion.  Among  numerous  passages"  we  read  some  more 
express  than  others,  in  which,  were  the  order  of  time  to 
be  regarded,  it  would  be  proper  to  begin  with  our  Lord's 
predictions ;  but,  as  I  have  determined  first  to  talie  notice  of 
those  passages  where  the  ancient  prophecies  ^^  had  been 
clearly  mentioned,  another  commencement  must  be  adopted. 


(t)  John,  1.  50.  comp.  46.  Luke,  xxiii.  2.    Matt.  ii.  4  s.  comp.  2. 
(m)  Mark,  xi.  10.     Matt.  xxn.  42.    John,  vn.  42. 
(v)  Isai.  Lixi.  10  ss.     Ps.  xvi.  9  ss. 


*  Comp.  Diss.  I.  in  ll.  n.  t.  hist,  aliquot  loca  ad  Matt,  v— vii.  Diss, 
in.  ad  Joh.  VI.  26  s. 

1 1  See  particularly  Luke,  xvii.  25.  xxiv.  26  s.  i.  Pet.  1. 11.  Phil, 
n.  7  ss.    Heb.  ii  9.    Eph.  i.  20  ss. 

1 2  To  these,  indeed,  Jesus  did  not  omit  to  bear  testimony ;  as  in 
Matt.  xxii.  41  ss.  he  clearly  declared,  that  the  offspring  of  David  was 
to  possess  a  kingdom  so  truly  divine,  that  he  deserved  to  be  called  Lord 


**  THE  KINGDOM  OP  HEAVEN."  177 

When  St.  Peter,  then,  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord  into 
heaven,  delivered  his  first  public  discourse,  the  substance  of 
what  he  wished  his  hearers  to  understand  way  this  ;  that  the 
miracle  which  had  brought  the  multitude  together  was  a  proof, 
that  that  same  Jesus  whom  they  had  crucified  {w)  had  not  only 
been  restored  to  life,  {x)  but  had  ascended  into  heaven,  and, 
as  Ps.  ex.  expresses  it,  had  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 
God,(y)  and  had  thus,  through  the  divine  power,  been  exalted 
to  a  station  so  preeminent,  that  he  was  both  able  to  send  fortli 
this  gift  which  was  evident  to  the  senses  of  the  whole  as- 
sembly, (2)  and  ought  to  be  regarded  by  all  as  one  whom 
God  had  made  Lord,  and  that  Lord,  too,  {a)  who,  under  the 
name  of  Christ,  (b)  i.  e.  the  king,  about  to  arise  out  of  the 
family  of  David,  (c)  had  been  all  along  the  object  of  their 
expectations,  {d)  With  this  representation  harmonizes  that  of 
St.  Paul,  that,  in  his  day,  it  had  come  to  pass,  that  God  had 
performed"  his  promise  concerning  the  offspring  of  David,(e) 
by  making  Jesus  king  ;^*  (/)  who,  in  pursuance  of  the  predic- 
tions of  the  prophets,  {g)  having  suffered  death,  and  been  re- 
called {h)  to  life  eternal,(2)  that  that  time  bad-arrived, (j)  which 
the  divine  prophet  had  long  ago  (k)  introduced  as  actually  pre- 
sent ;" — that  now,  since  Jesus  by  his  sacrifice  had  expiated  our 

(w)  Acts,  II.  36.  23.  (x)  v.  24.  32.  7   (y)  Acts,  n.  34  s. 

(«)  V.  33.  (a)  V,  36.  (6)  Ps.  11.  2. 

(c)  V.  6.  n.  Sam.  vii.  18  ss.  (d)  Acts,  11.  30.  (e)  xiii.  23. 

(/;  V.  32.  (g-)  V.  27.  29.  34.  (/i)  v.  27-31. 

(i)  V.   34.  (j)  V.  32:^3.  ik)  Ps.  II.  7. 


by  the  parent  himself ;  but  in  that  place,  which  I  shall  make  use  of 
hereafter  in  reference  to  my  subject,  there  is  certainly  no  mention  made 
of  predictions. 

I  3  On  the  construction  of  Acts,  xiii.  32.  see  Bengel. 

1  4  Since  by  that  promise  which  the  Apostle  says  was  now  accom- 
plished, an  expectation  had  been  raised  of  some  great  king  of  the  stock 
of  David,  (r.  23.),  and  also  a  subsequent  verse,  33.  refers  to  the  kingdom 
of  the  Messiah  (note  16.) ;  without  doubt  avaariiasLc  is  to  be  taken  in 
the  same  sense  as  in  the  promise  itself  (11.  Sam.  vii.  12.)  :  "  I  will  make 
king  (ama-Tiia-at)  thine  offspring  after  thee,  and  I  will  establish  his  king- 
dom.^*   Comp.  Acts,  VII.  18. 

1 5  I  do  not  apprehend  that  there  will  be  very  many,  at  the  present 

23 


178  THE  MEANING  OF 

sins,  (I)  the  declaration  in  Ps.  ex.  had  had  this  issue,  (m)  that 
Jesus  was  made  greater  than  all  things  which  are  subject  to 
God,(n)  and  even  than  the  angels  themselves,  and  thus  had  ob- 
tained that  name  and  glory  (o)  which  had  been  promised  to 
David's  offspring  ;  (p)  that  now  he  is  perceived  to  be  that  be- 
gotten Son  of  God,  who,  in  preference  to  all  the  kings  of  the 
stock  of  David,  deserves  to  be  called  the  Son  of  God/°  being 
possessed  of  the  same  divine  empire  as  the  Father,  {q)  But 
let  us  hear  also  what  our  Lord  himself  says.  We  find,  then, 
that  to  the  disciples  who  acknowledged  him(r)  to  be  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  (s)  he  expressly  shews,  on  the  very 
same  occasion,  (t)  the  sorrow  and  death  he  was  to  undergo^ 
before  he  commenced  his  kingly  life ;  and  publicly  before  the 
multitude  {u)  he  also  bids  his  friends  expect  not  wealth,  and 
a  prosperous  condition,  but  a  similar  destiny  of  calamities  and 
of  death ;  and,  at  last,  when  he  should  make  a  most  splendid 
exhibition  of  his  glory,  life,  truly  so  called,  and  a  most  certain 
recompense  of  reward :  (v)  but  he  adds,  (w)  that,  although 

(J)  Heb.  I.  3.  X.  12.  (m)  Heb.  i.  3.  comp.  13,  x.  12  s.  (n)  i.  2. 

(o)  V.  4.  (/»)  V.  5.       •  (9)  V.  2.  3,  IS.  8  s. 

(r)  Matt.  XVI.  16.  (s)  Ps.  11.  2.  7-  (t)  Matt.  xvi.  21 

(u)  Mark,  vin.  34.  Luke,  ix.  23.  (v)  v.  23—26. 
(xv)  t.  27. 


day,  disposed  to  doubt  whether  o^Tj  in  that  place  indicates  some  cer- 
tain and  definite  period,  (Heb.  iv.  7.)  which  was  present,  not  indeed  in 
the  Psalmist's  tim«,  but  in  that  to  which  the  Psalm  had  reference, 
(comp.  X.  5.) 

1  6  The  Apostle,  very  suitably  to  the  sense  of  the  prophecy,  (11.  Sam. 
VII.  14.  Ps.  II.  7.  comp.  Ps.  lxxxix.  27  s.  Ps.  ii.  6)  infers  from  that 
name  of  Son  of  God  the  dignity  of  Christ's  empire ;  (Heb.  i.  5.  comp.  with 
2 — 4.  comp-  Luke,  i.  32  s.  Matt.  xxvi.  63  s.)  but  at  the  same  time  very 
clearly  shews,  that  the  offspring  of  David  (Heb.  i  5.  comp.  withn.  Sam. 
vii,  14.)  could  not  have  obtained  the  name  and  dignity  of  Son  of  God, 
in  the  sense  that  he  was  made  far  superior  to  the  angels,  (Heb.  i. 
4.)  and  had  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  (t>.  3  )  and  was  appointed 
Lord  of  all  things,  {v.  2.)  unless,  besides  his  human  nature,  he  possessed 
also  one  much  more  exalted,  nay,  higher  than  all  others,  which  had 
founded,  and  which  supports  all  things,  {v.  10—12.  3.)  and  in  reference 
to  which  God  may  be  said  {v.  2.)  to  have  made  the  world  by  his  Son. 
Compare  Roos,  Lehre  und  Lebensgeschichte  Jesu  Christi.  P.  i.  p.  295. 


'*THE  KINGDOM  OP  HEAVEN."  179 

that  most  glorious  appearance  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  {x) 
was  neither  so  near  at  hand,  nor  of  that  earthly  form,  that 
any  one  ought  to  shrink  even  from  undergoing  death,  for  th6 
gospel's  sake,  (y)  yet  those  who  are  standing  here  "  shall,  a 
part  of  them,^''  not  die,  till  they  shall  have  seen  the  kingdom  of 
God,  or,  as  St.  Mark  expresses  it,  ix.  1.  till  they  shall  have 
seen  the.  kingdom  of  God  come  with  power,  which,  according 
to  the  interpretation  of  St.  Matthew,  (z)  means :  until  they 
shall  have  seen  this  man,  who  now  appears  so  abject  and 
miserable,  (a)  coming  to  **  his  kingdom.  Jesus,  therefore, 
some  little  time  after  that  discourse,  but  while  the  apostles  ^^ 
however  were,  a  great  part  of  them,  living,  entered  upon  his 
government ;  so  that  it  was  permitted  to  them  surviving  to 
see  ^  his  kingdom  coming,  and  also  with  power :  that  is,  they 

(a;)  V.  26.  {y)  v.  25.  {z)  xvi.  28.  (a)  v.  21. 


17  The  apostles  appear  to  have  stood  next  to  Jesus,  (comp.  Mark, 
III.  34)  having  been  the  only  persons  present  with  him  while  he  was 
praying,  (Luke,  ix  18.  21.)  before  the  people  were  called.  (Mark, 
viJi.  34.)  It  is  probable  that  he  meant  these,  therefore,  and  perhaps 
pointed  them  out,  by  some  visible  sign,  (Mark,  m.  34.  Matt-  xn.  49.) 
when  he  uttered  the  words  above  cited. 

1 8  Tim,  in  the  passage  referred  to,  signifies  a  part,  in  general ;  which 
may  also  be  a  great  part.  (John,  vi.  64,  comp.  with  66.  i.  Cor.  x.  7  ss.) 
And  Judas,  whom  our  Lord  usually  excepts  in  other  places  also,  when 
he  is  speaking  of  the  apostles,  (John,  xni.  10  s.)  certainly  died  before 
the  commencement  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

>  9  ^Ep^ofAtvov  h  tSi  03i.a-tKUA  seems  to  mean  the  same  thing  (comp. 
II.  Kings,  XIII.  20.  Job.  v.  26  )  as  i^x.^f*tvov  sle  t»v  ^ATtxiiav ;  and 
this  phrase  to  signify  coming  to  tJie  kingdom,  obtaining  possession  of  the 
government.  Comp.  Theodotion,  Dan.  iv.  33.  and  the  word  j<>fo  which, 

TT  ' 

though  it  properly  signifies  to  come  to  any  thing  CObss.  gramm.  p.  272.), 
frequently  means  to  obtain  possession  of  any  thing.  Perhaps  also  Luke, 
XXIII.  42.  ought  to  be  rendered :  **  when  thou  shalt  have  obtained  posses- 
sion o/thy  kingdom." 

3  0  Compare  above  Acts,  xni.  32. 

3  I  In  like  manner,  Matt.  xxvi.  64.  it  is  said  that  the  Jews  shall  here- 
after see  this  same  Jesus,  whom  they  were  now  so  ignominiously  treat- 
ing, sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  as  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
(v.  63.note  16.)  and  possessed  of  his  divine  government.  But  in  this 
place,  as  in  that  under  discussion,  (xvi.  27.)  there  is  added  the  mention 
of  a  most  illustrious,  though  far  distant,  proof  of  his  glory,  for  the  ex- 


180  THE  MEANING  01 

were  enabled,  from  many  and  great  events,  (among  which, 
besides  the  history  of  the  ascension  into'  heaven,  (6)  we 
reckon,  for  example,  that  remarkable  and  pubhc  gift  of  the 
promised  Spirit,(c)  a  power  which,  through  the  divine  efficacy 
of  Christ  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  {d)  the  apostles 
sensibly  felt  to  be  communicated  to  them,  for  teaching,  de- 
fending, and  by  miracles  establishing  the  gospel ; — and,  last 
of  all,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;)  to  perceive  and  know, 
that  that  despised  and  crucified  Jesus  now  possessed  power- 
ful and  universal  dominion.  And  this  is  the  very  point  I 
wished  to  enforce  ; — that,  after  the  death  of  Jesus ^  (e)  from 
the  period  of  his  resurrection  and  ascension  into  heaven,  (f) 
that  heavenly  kingdom  which  the  ancient  prophets  had  pre- 
dicted, w^as  entered  upon  by  the  offspring  of  David,  {g) 


§.  IV. 

But  if  the  commencement  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  to 
be  reckoned  from  the  period,  when  Jesus,  having  passed 
through  liis  allotment  of  suffering  and  death,  ascended  into 
heaven  ;  it  is  evident,  that,  during  the  time  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, and  of  Chrisf  s  residence  on  the  earth,  it  was  as  near  at 
hand  as  possible,  (h)  nay,  was  actually  present,  (i)  For  not 
only,  as  it  is  well  known,  does  the  usus  loquendi,  as  well 
generally,  as  in  the  sacred  writings  in  particular,^^  allow 
things  to  be  spoken  of  as  present  which  are  near  at  hand  ; 
but  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  not  merely  at  hand,  but  in  a 

(b)  Acts,  I.  9.  11.     (c)  Acts,  II.  33— 36.        (d)  Mark,  xvi.  19  8. 

(c)  lleb,  I.  3.  (/)  Acts,  n.  31  s.  34.     (g)  v.  SO.  33.  36.    Heb.  i.  3—5.13. 
(/»)  Matt.  III.  2.  IV  17,  X.  7.    Luke,  x.  9.  11. 

(i)  Malt.  xii.  28.     Luke,  xi.  20,  xvii.  21. 


hibition  of  which  he  shall  come  again  from  heaven,  (Acts,  1. 11.)  as  he 
went  up  to  heaven,  when  (ii.  34.  Mark,  xvi.  19.)  he  would  enter  upon 
his  kingdom,  and  sit  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 

3  3  Comp.  Rev.  xi.  15.  xvi.  17.    Matt.  xxvi.  64.    Luke,  xxn.  69. 
II  Tira.  IV.  6  s. 


^  OF  THE  ^4 

UNIVERSn 


certain  sense  was  come,  when  Jesus  was  born.  For  since  it 
was  promised  to  the  offspring  of  David^  its  commencement 
could  not  in  any  way  be  imagined,  unless  he  who  was  to  reign 
liad  first  been  conceived  and  born  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
when  he  was  born,  the  time  was  already  come  to  which  the 
prophets  had  referred,  when  they  foretold  the  government  of 
a  man,  about  to  spring  from  David,  We  know  ^"^  certainly 
that  Jesus  was  born  for  the  very  purpose,  that  he  might  pub- 
licly appear  as  the  promised  king  ;  and  Christ's  human  nature 
was,  from  the  period  of  his  conception,  (j )  joined  in  that  in- 
timate union  {k)  with  his  divine,  in  order  that  (/)  it  might  be 
properly  qualified  to  enter  upon  the  august  empire  (m)  of  the 
Son  of  God.  (n)  There  are  discoverable,  moreover,  in  all 
those  places  in  which  Christ  says  that  his  kingdom  is  come, 
clear  indications  that  a  royal  person  ^  is  chiefly  referred  to. 

U )  Xuke,  I.  35.  (k)  John,  1. 14.  (0  Note  16. 

(m)  Luke,  i.  32  a.  (n)  v.  35.    John,  i,  14. 


3  3  As  I  am  inquiring  only  about  that  kingdom,  which  the  prophets 
promised,  but  which  the  gospel  shows  to  have  come ;  it  is  plain,  that  I  am 
not  here  referring  to  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  in  itself  considered, 
whose  government  could  not  be  the  subject  of  promise  or  of  expecta- 
tion, (comp.  John,  i.  3.  and  note  16.)  but  to  the  kingdom  of  that  man, 
who,  as  it  had  been  shewn  in  the  ancient  prophecies,  was  one  day  to 
spring  from  the  family  of  David. 

2  4  <'  I  am  a  king,  being  bom  for  this  end,  that  I  might  be  a  king, 
(comp.  Luke,  i.  32  s.)  and  therefore  (Matt.  iv.  17.  23.  comp.  note  7.) 
I  came  into  the  world,  that  I  might  confirm  this  truth  (this  doctrine  con- 
cerning my  kingdom)."  John,  xvm.  37.  I  give  to  the  article  7»  the 
same  sense,  which  it  has  in  Acts,  ix.  2.  comp.  xxii.  4.  and  Heb.  iii.  3. 
"  In  proportion  to  the  greater  honor  which  redounds  from  this  house, 
over  which  Jesus  presides,  (».  2.)  to  him  who  built  it,  than  from  the 
other,  over  which  Moses  presided."  Comp.  Obss.  graram.  p.  Hi),  n.  1. 
[  That  the  article,  however,  has  in  Acts,  ix.  2.  the  force  assigned  to  it  by 
Storr,  may  well  be  questioned.  See  a  judicious  note  of  Bishop  Middle- 
ton,  in  his  *  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article,'  in  loco.  —  Tr.  ] 

2  5  The  kingdom  had  so  far  come,  that  the  king  by  whom  it  was  to 
be  administered  was  certainly  present.  Unless,  indeed,  as  is  often  the 
case  with  the  words  t^ovria,^  a^x^,  nu^Umc,  the  abstract  ^acimIa  be 
used  for  the  concrete  ^AffiKtvt,  Certainly  the  Hebrew  term,  which 
commonly  signifies  king,  properly  means  kingdonif  (comp.  Obss.  gramm. 
p.  151-)  and  was  at  length  figuratively  transferred  to  the  signification  of 


182  THE  MEANING  OF 

Thus,  in  Maft.  xn.  28.  he  shewed  that  his  kingdom  zvas 
come,  because  (o)  such  manifest  proofs  existed  of  his  power 
over  demons,  that  it  was  plain  a  person  had  made  his  appear- 
ance, who  might  properly  be  accounted  the  conqueror  of  the 
most  formidable  enemies. (;?)  And  when,  in  Luke,  xvii.  20  s. 
he  shews  that  the  kingdom  of  God  does  not  come  in  such  a 
manner,  that  it  may  be  easily  observed  by  any  one  '^  or  point- 
ed out,  by  this  argument,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  already 
in  the  midst  ^"^  of  the  Jews,  though  ignorant  of  it, — he  appears 
to  mean  nothing  else  than  this  ;  that  Ac,  the  offspring  of  David 
about  to  reign,  was  present  among  the  Jews.{q)  Thence  he  adds 
immediately  afterwards,  Luke,  xvii.  ^2.  that  the  time  should 
come,  when  the  disciples  would  earnestly  desire  this  presence 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  would  long  to  recover  one  of  the 
days  which  he  had  passed  among  them  ;  but  that  he  was  then 
about  to  cease  for  some  time  his  appearance,  and  that  those 
ought  to  receive  no  credit,  who  should  represent  him  as  being 
present,  (r)  For  although  he  should  at  some  future  time  re- 
turn, (5)  yet  he  should  not  then  come  fJt-sra  flra^arYj^csw?,  (t) 
but  suddenly,  (m)  and  should  take  many  by  surprise,  {v)  If 
therefore  you  would  trace  the  kingdom  of  heaven  from  its 
very  beginning  and  foundation,  which  was  laid  in  the  concep- 
tion and  nativity  of  the  king ;  then  it  embraces  the  whole  time 
of  the  Messiah,^  which  Moses  and  the  prophets /oresAewe J  as 

(0)  V.  29.  Luke,  xi.  22.  (p)  Corap.  Ps.  ex.  (g)  Comp.  Joba,  i.  26. 

(r)  V.  23.  (.S)  V.  24. 26.  30.  (0  v.  20. 

(u)  V.  24.  (w)  V.  26  ss. 


king.  Its  proper  signification  is  to  be  found  in  Dan.  viii.  21.  at  the  be- 
ginning, vii.  17 ;  which  the  lxx.  and  THEODOTioif  perceived  in  this  last 
place,  though  not  in  the  first.  On  the  other  hand  the  lxx.  i.  Kings,  xi. 
14,  translate  the  Hebrevvn^D  which  is  to  be  understood  concerning  «Ac 
king,  {v.  15.)  by  the  word  ^utrixtU.  Comp.  Hess,  tiber  die  Lehren, 
Thaten  und  Schicksale  unsers  Herrn.  p.  61.  178.  279  s. 

2  6  Comp.  Elsner,  Obss.  ss.  ad  v.  20. 

2  7  See  Raphel.  Annott.  in  N.  T.  ex  Xenophonte,  ad  v.  21. 

2  8  la  this  are  included,  besides  Christ's  kingdom,  properly  under- 
stood, all  the  other  circumstances  also,  which,  according  to  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  (Luke,  xxiv.  26  s.  44  ss.)  were  to  take  place  before  the 
Messiah  entered  upon  that  glorious  kingdom- 


"  THE  KINUDOAI  OF  HEAVEN."  183 

io  come,  (w)  but  John  was  able  to  announce  as  present,^  {x) 
being  in  this  very  respect  {y)  superior  to  all  the  prophets,  (z) 
that  immediately  after  him  the  last  and  greatest  of  all  the  pro- 
phets, that  is,  the  Lord  himself,  being  then  just  at  hand,  was 
openly  to  make  his  appearance.  But  if  you  inquire  respect- 
ing that  time  particularly,  when  the  person  whom  the  prophets 
predicted  as  about  to  possess  universal  dominion,  not  merely 
was  present,  but,  in  the  sense  intended  by  them,^"  entered 
upon  his  eternal  kingdom  ;  then,  indeed,  the  time  of  the  Mes- 
siah had  arrived  {<!tsir'kv]^(^r(u  o  xai^og),  at  that  period  when 
Jesus,  and  before  him  John,  pubhshed  .the  gospel ; — in  such  a 
manner,  however,  that  his  divine  kingdom  was  rather  at 
hand  (a)  than  come,  and  was  as  yet  to  be  looked  for,  (6)  and 
sought  by  prayer.^  (c)     On  which  account,  John,  however 

(w)  npot(priTCv(rav,  Matt.  XI.  13.      (ar)  evayyeXt^eadai,  Luke,  xvi.  16. 
(y)  Matt.  XI.  10.  (z)  r.  9, 11.  (o)  Mark,  1. 15. 

(6)  XV.  43.  Luke,  xxni.  51.        (c)  xi.  2.  Matt.  vi.  10. 


2  »  I  think  that  that  more  comprehensive  sense  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
by  which  it  is  made  to  include  the  whole  of  Christ's  history,  obtains 
universally  in  those  places  where  the  gospel  (message)  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  mentioned  (note  7,  8)  :  since  it  is  evident,  that  in  the  gospel  are 
included  not  only  Christ's  sitting  down  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and 
the  administration  of  his  divine  government,  but  also  all  the  transac- 
tions of  his  former  life.  (John,  i.  29.  vi.  51  i.  Cor.  xv.  1  ss.)  Hence 
there  is  sometimes  substituted  for  the  phrase  above  mentioned  (comp. 
Acts,  XIX.  8.  XX.  25.  with  v.  21.),  sometimes  there  is  subjoined  in  the 
same  context  (xxviii.  23.  31.  vui.  12),  an  explanation,  to  inform  us  that 
CAmt  was  intended.  Add  Luke,  xviii.  29,  him  tm?  0*a-ixilit(  tcu 
^iovj  for  which  in  Matt.  xix.  29,  is  hiKiv  tcE  xi>ta-rav,  and  in  Mark,  x. 
29,  hiKiv  ToD  ^pio-rov  Kat  Toy  ivix.yyzKiov,  showing  the  reference  to  be 
to  Christ  (or  the  kingdom  of  God.). 

3  0  The  ancient  prophecies  respecting  Christ  maybe  said  to  have  their 
accomplishment,  as  soon  as  he  had  begun  to  reign  in  the  manner  pre- 
dicted by  the  prophets.  For  all  the  events,  which  afterwards  took 
place,  or  which  shall  yet  happen,  as,  for  instance,  the  joyful  extension 
of  the  gospel,  are  included  in  that  very  empire  (§.  vii.)  which  was  then 
present.  Jesus,  therefore,  towards  the  end  of  his  life,  when  his  sitting 
down  at  the  right  hand  of  God  (Luke,  xxu.  69.)  was  just  at  hand  (note 
22,),  shews  that  the  things  which  had  been  written  concerning  him  had 
their  accomplishment,  v.  37. 

3  J  It  is  not  to  be  hence  inferred,  that  this  prayer  (Luke,  xi.  2)  is  not 


184  TftE  MEANING  OF 

superior  to  the  prophets,  who  were  able  neither  to  point  to  a 
present  king,  nor  to  announce  the  approach  of  his  kingdom, 
was  judged  by  our  Lord  himself  {d)  to  be  less  than  the 
apostles,^  though  these  latter,  as  having  been  formerly  the  dis- 
ciples of  John,  were  in  this  respect  certainly  his  inferiors. 
The  latter  exercised  their  public  duty  and  ministry,^  not  only 
during  that  happy  -^  period  when  Christ  sojourned  among  men, 
but  actually  in  the  midst  of  the  supremely  happy  days^^  o^  his 
heavenly  empire  ;  they  having  lived  to  see  these,  which  was  a 
privilege  denied  to  John,  (c)  Whence  also,  during  that  period 
which  preceded  Christ^s  death  and  ascension  into  heaven,  the 
right  of  citizenship  in  the  heavenly  kingdom^^  which  was  to 

(d)  Matt.  XI.  11.     Luke,  vii-  28.  <c)  Comp.  Mark,  ix.  1. 


proper  for  use  in  our  own  day.  For  although  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
come,  as  soon  as  Christ  had  ascended  into  heaven  ;  yet  we  shall  presently 
see,  that,  in  another  sense,  the  kingdom  of  God  maybe  not  yet  arrived. 
For,  to  say  nothing  of  that  most  glorious  manifestation  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  which  is  yet  to  be  made  ($.  viii.),  how  many  nations  are  there 
to  whom  this  heavenly  kingdom  has  not  yet  come  (Matt.  xxi.  43.)? 
how  many  Christians  are  there,  who  are  not  yet  within  the  kingdom 
(Col.  I.  13.)  of  the  Son  of  God?  Comp.  Luther's  Larger  Catechism 
(p.  516  s.  ed.  Rechenberg.). 

32  "' Those  who  are  less;  yet,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  when  it 
shall  have  commenced,  are  greater  than  he  (John)."  The  article  does 
not  forbid,  either  that  the  singular  fA.tK^6rt^os  should  be  taken  collectively, 
(comp  Diss,  de  sensu  vocis  eT/xa/ec  in  N.  T.  note  49.)  or  that,  out  of  many 
disciples,  inferior  to  their  teacher,  cerlain  ijidividttals,  i.  e.  the  apostles, 
should  be  understood,  comp.  Apoc.  viii.  2. 

3  3  That  it  is  to  this  that  the  declaration  of  our  Lord  refers,  is  shewn 
by  the  circumstance,  that  John  is  considered,  through  the  whole  of  this 
passage,  with  reference  to  his  public  ministry,  (v.  9.) 

3  4    Comp.  Luke,  X.  23 

3  s  There  were  many  things,  which  could  not  be  proclaimed  even  by 
our  Lord  himself  (John,  xvi.  12.)  much  less  by  John,  which  were  after- 
wards published  and  diffused  far  and  wide  by  the.  apostles;  while,  on 
the  contrary,  John's  sphere  was  circumscribed  by  the  limits  of  Palestine. 
Comp.  MoscHE  Bibelfreund,  P.  i.  p.  380  s.  and  add  John,  vii.  38  s. 
XIV.  12. 

3  6  As  the  word  jrox/TiTst,  which  signifies  both  the  administration  of 
a  free  state  (see,  for  example,  Demosthenes,  Vol.  ii.  ed.  Reisk.  p.  1396, 
[Demosh.  et  Aesch.  Op.  Ed.  Lond.  1827.  Vol,  4.  p.  420.— Tr.  ]  and 
in  many  othqr  places,),  and  any  form  of  government  whatever,  asjn 


'*  THli:  klAM^DOM  or  H£AV£N."  185 

begin  when  Christ  had  ascended  into  heaven,  is  said  to  be 
sought  for^  as  it  were  with  violence^  and  seized  before  hand. 
It  follows,  then,  that  the  commencement  of  the  Messiah's 
kingdom,  although  in  a  certain  sense  it  may  be  traced  from 
his  birth,  (/)  yet  properly  is  to  be  reckoned  from  his  ascen- 
sion into  heaven,  {g)  Which  proves,  that  a  far  different  ap- 
pearance was  then  given  to  the  kingdom  of  David,  which  Jesus 
possessed  a/ier  his  death  and  return  to  a  new  life  ;  and  that 

(f)  h  IV.  (go  i.  n:. 


-fflscHiNES,  (Vol.  III.  Orat.  grace,  p.  29.  389.)  [Demosth.  et  Aesch. 
Op.  ed.  Lond.  1827.  Vol.  8.  p.  9.— Tr.  ]  is  transferred  to  the  signi- 
fication of  the  right  of  citizenship  (see  VVetsteix,  at  Acts.  xxn.  28.)  : 
so  also  ^ATiXiicc  T^v  oi/!xvay  means  not  only  the  em/)ire  or  government 
of  the  Messiah,  but  tht  right  of  citizenship  in  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  and 
all  the  felicity  and  duties  connected  with  it,  as  Rom.  xiv.  17.  Matt.  xiii. 
44  s.  xis.  12.  ('' that  either,  in  seasons  of  distress,  they  may  the  more 
surely,  i.  Cor.  vii.  26.  or  at  all  times,  may  the  more  evidently,  v.  34. 
sustain  the  part  and  obtain  the  privileges  of  cilizens,^^)  and  perhaps 
Mark,  xii.  34.  where,  however,  as  with  respect  to  the  word  vnKirtittf, 
in  Eph.  II.  12,  I  am  in  doubt  whether  we  are  to  understand //je  common- 
ivtalth  itself,  that  is,  the  multitude  of  citizens,  who  are  followers  of 
Christ,  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  (Col.  i.  13.)  or  the  right  of  dti- 
scnship,  which,  in  Latin,  enters  into  the  signification  of  the  term  civitas. 
The  right  of  citizenship ^  however,  seems  peculiarly  to  be  intended,  in 
that  passage  of  St.  Matthew  to  which  I  have  referred  above  (xi.  12.) : 
"  from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  these,  in  which  ye  are  now 
listening  to  my  instructions,  the  right  to  the  heavenly  commonwealth  is 
sought  for  with  violence,  and  those  who  use  violence  obtain  it."  We 
have  seen,  indeed,  that  in  Luke,  xvi.  16.  >;  ^A<rthtix  rtv  ^-iou  is  used  in 
another  sense,  (note  28-  29.)  But  this  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not 
understand  the  pronoun  airiti,  which  follows,  to  refer  either  to  the 
right  to  the  divine  commonwealth,  in  regard  to  which  («/?  uuTtif,  comp. 
Rom.  IV.  20,  and  note  86)  many  strive  as  it  were  with  great  violence, — 
or  to  the  heavenly  commonwealth  itself,  itilo  which  many  press  with 
vehemence.  For  we  have  examples,  elsewhere,  of  the  word  to  which 
a  pronoun  refers  being  used  in  a  different  sense,  in  the  second  instance, 
from  that  which  it  had  at  first ;  as  Acts,  viii.  5.  ttoKic  is  the  city  itself; 
but  etvToli  refers  to  the  same  word,  just  as  if  (comp.  r.  14)  it  had  signi- 
fied the  inhabitants  of  the  city.     Comp.  Obss.  gramm.  p.  427. 

•37  The  signification  of /3iit<^0iua<,  which,  in  Matt.  xi.  12,  is  used 
passively,  as  is  the  case  with  rjayythi^ofjitti  in  the  parallel  passage^ 
Luke,  XVI.  16,  may  be  seen  from  the  citations  adduced  by  £s£BS  and 
LoKS»XR  on  Matt.  zi.  1^. 

34 


186  THE  MKANINfi  CkV 

the  throne  of  David  became  a  far  more  exalted  seat  of  ma** 
jesty,  {h)  from  the  time  that  it  was  occupied  by  Jesus.  («) 


§.  V. 

*2.  Its  perpetuity r 

But  tliis  point  being  estabhshed,  it  follows,  that  the  dura" 
iion  of  this  empire,  which  Jesus  obtained  with  his  new  and 
immortal  life,  is  not*  to  be  measured  by  that  of  other  king- 
doms. For  since  the  heavenly  kingdom  can  neither  be  de- 
prived of  its  king,  seeing  he  lives  for  ever,  (k)  nor  ever  left 
destitute  by  his  divine  (/)  power ;  it  can  certainly  have  no 
end,  except  one  determined  by  God,  who  conferred  ^  the 
kingdom  upon  Christ.  Moreover,  that  in  the^very  first  pro- 
phecy (m)  an  everlasting  empire  was  promised  to  the  offspring 
of  David,  is  evident  from  a  correct  interpretation  both  of  the 
Old  (Ps.  Lxxxix.  30.  37  s.=^  Dan.  vii.  14.  Isai.  lv.  3.) 
and  New  Testament.  St.  Paul,  when  he  had  shewn 
that  Jesus  (w)  was  that  same  king,  who  had  been  so  long 
expected  to  arise  out  of  the  family  of  David,  goes  on  to 
shew,  (o)  that  he  was  called  by  God  to  life  and  government  *•* 
with  this  provision,  that  he  should  never  return  to  destruction,"' 

(ft)  Acts,  n.  34.    Heb.  i.  3  s.  13.    Malt.  xxii.  41  ss.  xxvi.  64. 

(0  Acts,  II.  30  ss.  {k)  Heb.  vii.  23  ss.  ix.  25  ss.    Rom.  vi.  9. 

(0  Ps.  ex.  1.  (m)  II.  Sam.  vii.  13. 16. 

(n)  Acts,  XIII.  32  s.  \.  in.    (o)  v.  34. 


3  3  Comp.  Ps.  ex.  1.  4.  Heb.  v.  5  s.  Acts,  ii.  36.  Heb.  i.  2.  John, 
V.  22— 27.    Matti-xxviii.  18.    Phil.  ii.9ss.    Eph.  i.  20  ss.  aod  above, 

3  9  Comp.  MicHAELis,  crit.  Collegium  tiber  die  drey  wixihtigsten 
Psalmen  von  Christo.  p.  467  s. 

4  0  That  it  was  to  this  the  apostle  referred,  appears  from  the  passage 
of  Isaiah  (r.v.  3.)  which  he  cites. 

4  1  Although  ha.<^^ogaL  v.  35—37.  ir.  29-  31.  signifies  properly' that 
consequence  of  death,  which  consists  in  the  corruption  and  decay  of 
the  lifeless  body ;  yet,  in  this  place,  destruction,  in  general,  is  meant 
(comp.  Ezek.  xxi.  31.    Jer.  xin.  14.),  of  whatever  kind  it  be.    In  the 


THE  KINGDOM  OP  HEAVEN. 


187 


since  that  great  blessing  *»  promised  to  David,  (p)  is  eternal.*^ 
Nay,  that  (9)  so  far  was  he  from  possessing,  hke  his  father,(r) 

(p)  V.  32.  23.  (q)  V.  35—37.  (r)  v.  36. 

.  ^  ^  - 

former  sense,  indeed,  Jesus  did  not  experience  «riai<^9o§«  (Acts,  xm. 
37.);  all  discussion,  therefore,  respecting  his  re/wrn  ijc  <f '/*<;) 9 og«v,  is  ne- 
cessarily precluded.  But  no  destruction,  no  death,  any  more  (Rom.  vi. 
V.)  awaits  him  hereafter.  Whence  his  kingdom  shall  never  be  destroyed 
(ov  S'ix^^afyiTtrdu^  Dan.  vii.  14.  ap.  Theodotion.),  nor  transferred  to  ano- 
ther (comp.  Heb.  vii.  24). 

4  8  The  Greek  Sr/*,  whicli  relates  properly  to  j^icfy,  partakes  also  of 
the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  ^on  (Isai.  lv.  3.  comp.  lxx.  Deut.xxix.  19.), 
and  expresses  a  great  benefit  (comp,  Obss.  gramm.  p.  97  ss.);  as  the 
■Greek  word  eiifmt,  which  signifies  pains,  has  in  Acts,  ii.  24.  borrowed 
from  the  Hebrew  ( t<73n  ),  which  signifies  both  pains  and  cords,  the 

signification  of  cords.  But  what  that  benefit  toward  David  is  (comp.  iv. 
9.  and  note  43,),  is  evident  from  Psalm  lxxxix.  2.  This,  both  David 
himself  (ii.  Sam.  vii.  19.  26.  29.),  and  the  Psalmist  also  {v.  5.  29  s.  35  ss.) 
accounted  of  paramount  value ;  that  an  eternal  dignity,  namely,  was 
promised  to  David's  offspring. 

4  3  Since  the  blessing  which  God  wished  to  confer  upon  David,  con- 
sists especially  in  the  perpetuity  of  his  kingdonl ;  (note  42.)  sure  (jr/a-Tov) 
cannot  mean  any  thing  but  eternal.  But  the  sense  of  perpetuity  appears 
to  be  the  proper  meaning  in  this  place,  for  this  reason,  that  with  ri 
Sa-ix  Tfit  rriard  (  D"'JONJn  )  ^^  Isaiah,  (lv.  3.)  there  is  joined  Q^ip  f|^«^3 

a  promise  stable,  and  of  perpetual /orce  ;  to  which,  in  the  principal  pro- 
phecy, (Ps.  LXXXIX.  29.)  answers  nJO}<J  ^'•'13    while,  on  the  other 

hand,  for  Q^jQK^n  in  npH  in  Isaiah,  is  read  in  the  Psalm  ^ipf^  {v, 

^1»  inS  )  iS'niDa^X  thivh  •  so  that  it  is  evident  that  m^jj  and  dSi>S 

are  used  for  each]  other,  and  that  the  blessing  pKJ  towards  David,  is  a 

bleasing  to  be  kept  for  him  for  ever.    The  word  mj^j    moreover,  is  not 

-uncommon  in  other  places,  in  the  sense  of  stability  and  perpetuity;  as, 
for  example,  in  ii.  Sam.  vn.  16,  when  it  is  said  that  the  family  and  king- 
dom of  David  shall  be  established  (|aX2)  /<"*  e^'er  {th'\^' '^}!l\  reference 

is  made  to  the  duration  of  the  thing  promised,  not  to  the  sure  fulfilment 
of  the  promise.  In  like  manner,  Ps,  lxxxix.  38,  the  term  fpKJ  ^s  ap- 
plied to  the  oflfepring  and  kingdom  of  David ;  but  this,  both  the  parallel- 
ism and  the  adjunct  pnt^a  n;;,  like  that  perpetual^  Ccomp.  Gen.  ix,  IQ.) 

sign  in  the  clouds  (c.  13  ss.),  explain  in  this  sense :  Q^)y  p3\  Finally, 
perpetual  fountains  arc  said  to  be  D^J0k3»  Isai,  xxxiii.  16.    Jer,  xv.  18« 

•  tv:v 

—The  blessing;  or  kingdom,  promise^  to  Dayid;  had  a  character  far  dif- 


188  THE  MEANING  OP 

a  government  limited  to  a  certain  period,  and  to  be  terminat- 
ed by  death,  that,  even  before  he  had  attained  that  high  dig- 
nity, the  power  was  not  given  (s)  to  that  death  which  he 
voluntarily  underw^ent,  of  subjecting  his  flesh  to  the  dominion 
of  destruction  or  decay,  or  of  at  all  retarding  the  attainment 
of  that  eternal  (/)  life  and  happiness  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,  (m)  to  which  he  was  advancing.  More  explicitly,  how- 
ever, and  plainly  than  all.  does  the  angel  who  foretold  the 
conception  of  Jesus  declare,  (w)  that  the  son  of  Mary  {x)  who 
was  to  arise  from  the  stock  of  David,  {y)  should  reign  ik  rove 
aluvag,  and  that  of  his  kingdom  there  should  be  no  end  ;  where 
that  ambiguous  expression  eiV  rovg  a/wvaj,  (ii.  Sam.  vii.  13. 16."*) 
is,  in  the  parallel  part  of  the  declaration,  clearly  explained  in 
such  a  manner,  as  to  make  it  evident  that  w^e  are  to  understand 
an  infinite  and  eternal  duration.  The  declarations,  therefore,  of 
David  (z)  and  of  St.  Paul,  (a)  ought  not  to  be  taken  in  an  op^ 
posite  sense.  Nor  does  it  seem  difliicult  to  perceive,  that  their 
meaning  is  far  different  from  this.  For  since  an  eternal  priest- 
hood "^  is  attributed  to  the  Messiah,  and  this  is  very  closely 
allied  *^  to  his  kingdom,  (b)  it  is  evident  that  they  do  not  in^ 
tend  to  deny  eternity  to  the  latter.     Therefore  Iw?  in  Ps.  ex, 


(s)  Comp.  II.  24.  (f)  Ps.  XVI.  II.  («)  Comp.  ex.  1. 

(w)  Luke,  I.  33.  (x)  v.^l.  (y)  v.  32. 

(z)  Ps.  ex.  1.  (a)  I.  Cor.  XV.  24— 28. 

(6)  Ps,  ex.  4.  comp.  with  Heb.  vn.  1—3, 


ferent  from  the  unstable'and  brief  kingdom  of  Saul  (h.  Sam.  vn.  16. 
comp.  with  15.). 

4  4  That  that  primary  prophecy  is  referred  to  by  the  angel,  is  clear 
from  a  comparison  of  the  two  places  (Luke,  i.  32,  and  ii.  Sam.  vii.  14. 
16). 

4  5  Jtlf  rot  ttlmat,  (Ps.  ex.  4.  Heb.  vii.  17.  21.  24.)  is  not  only  taken 
by  St.  Paul  in  the  sense  of  eternity  (v.  3.  23 — 25.),  but  the  Psalmist  him- 
self also  pretty  clearly  interprets  it  in  the  same  way,  while  he  derives 
the  Messiah's  priesthood  from  a  divine  decree,  of  a  very  solemn  and  sa- 
cred character  (Heb.  vii.  20),  and  never  to  be  changed. 

4  6  Compare  also  Heb.  v.  5.  where  it  is  shewn  that  Jesus  obtained 
from  God  a  most  glorious  priesthood,  from  a  passage  which  refers  more 
properly  to  his  kingdom  (note  IG^. 


189 

i.  does  not  *^  mean,  that,  when  every  enemy  has  been  subdued, 
the  government "'  is  to  be  taken  away  from  Christ ;  but  as  the 
general  object  of  this  whole  Psalm  is  to  shew,  (c)  that  the  de- 
signs of  his  enemies  against  the  divine  prince  would  at  length 
jiave  an  ending  altogether  different  from  that  which  they  ex- 
pected, it  was  in  exact  conformity  with  such  a  design  to  es- 
tablish this  point  especially,  that  the  divinely  appointed  Lord 
should  reign,  until  all  his  enemies  should  be  subjected  to  his 
own  (d)  power.  Which  does  not  mean,  that  he  to  whose  go- 
vernment the  enemies  shall  be  subjected,  (which  circumstance 
proves  of  itself  the  continuance  of  that  government,)  should 
then  resign  his  power  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  result  of 
the  whole  matter  is  declared  to  be  this,  that  they  who  had  re- 
fused to  acknowledge  this  prince,  and  wished  to  remove  him 

(fi)  V.  2  ss.  compared  with  ii.  1  ss.  (d)  ex.  1. 


4  7  Compare  the  passages  cited  by  Glass  (Philol.  S.  p.  382  s.  Vol.  i. 
Ed.  Dathe.  Lips.  1776.)  Isai.  xlvi.  4.     Matt,  xxvin.  20.     i.  Tim.  iv.  13. 

4  8  That  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God  is  in  this  passage  indicative 
of  divine  government,  1  gather  from  i.  Cor.  xv.  25.  Heb.  vm.  ].,  to  say 
nothing  of  other  passages  (xii.  2.  Eph.  i.  20  ss.  Mark,  xvi.  19  s.),  which 
not  quite  so  clearly  refer  to  the  Psalm  in  question,  treating  of  the  kingly 
priest  (comp.  Heb.  viii.  1)  and  considered  at  large  in  Ch.  vi.  20,  vii. 
But  if  it  be  inquired,  for  what  reason  mention  is  made  of  the  right  hand 
of  God,  the  answer  is  easy.  For,  as  there  was  evidently  no  danger 
(i.  Cor.  XV.  27),  that  he  who  bade  the  Messiah  to  sit  on  his  right  hand 
should  be  thought  inferior  to  him,  and  as,  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  take  particular  care  to  place  the  wonderful  dignity  of  the 
Messiah  clearly  before  the  view,  it  was  certainly  proper  to  speak  not  of 
the  left,  but  the  right  hand,  which  is  a  token  of  honor  (comp.  Matt.  xxv. 
33  s.  Gen.  xlviii.  13  ss.  and  Muntinghe  kurze  Anm.  zu  den  Psalmen, 
p.  187  s.).  But  the  meaning  is,  that  the  Messiah,  generally  near  God . 
sits  on  the  very  throne  of  God.  Whence  immediately  after^vards  (Ps. 
ex.  5.)  God  is  in  turn  (comp.  Comm.  in  ep.  adHebr.  p.  81.)  said  (o  be  at 
the  right  hand,  that  is,  (comp.  Herder,  vom  Geist  derheb.  Po6sie,  P.  ii. 
p.  404.  409.)  at  the  side  of  the  kingly  priest.  But  the  reason  why  I  hesitate 
to  refer  the  term  ti^K  v.  5.  to  the  Messiah  himself,  is  that  otherwise  the 

T    -: 

pronoun  of  the  secoryi  person  in  the  word  nyj3>  would  have  to  betrans- 

f  '  ;     • : 

ferred  to  God^  although  the  Psalm  in  other  places  usually  speaks  of  God 
In  the  third  {v.  1  s.  4.),  but  of  the  Messiah  in  the  second  (v.  2  s.  4.  1.) 
iverson.  (comp.  Mu.vtinghe  Besondre  Anm.  p.  170.) 


190  THE  MEANING  OF 

by  force  from  his  government,  are  all  overthrown  and  con- 
founded, while  he  himself,  on  the  contrary,  is  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,     He  shall   reign  for  a  considerable  time  in  the 
midst  of  enemies,  (e)  securely  (/)  expecting  {g)  an  end  of  the 
rebellion  ;  but,  while  he  himself  is  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,  it  shall  at  length  come  to  pass,  that  all  his  adversaries 
shall  be  reduced  under  subjection  to  his  authority.     Such  be- 
ing the  nieaning  of  the  Psalm,  and  this  sense  of  it  being  re- 
cognized by  St.  Paul  himself,  who  has  evidently  made  the 
dignity  of  the  Messiah,  described  in  the  Psalm,  coequal  {h) 
with  his  life,  which  he  shews  to  be  eternal ;  (i)  we  seem  to 
be  going  quite  in  opposition  to  his  design,  by  supposing  that 
in  I.  Cor.  xv.  any  end  is  assigned  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom. 
Therefore  the  government,  which  it  is  said  in  v.  24,  he  shall 
restore  *^  to  God,  even  the  Father,  must  not  be  supposed  to 
mean  ChrisCs  government,  but  thatof  erery  opposing  ^  power, 
which  is  evidently  declared  to  be  destroyed,  that  the  power 
may  be  restored  to  God.     For  since  those  who  set  themselves 
against  Christ,  at  the  same  time  resist  God  also  ;  ( j  )  the  go- 
vernment is  restored  to  God,  {k)  when  it  is  restored  to  Christ, 
sul)duing  ^*  those  who  are  at  the  same  time  the  enemies  of 
himself  and  of  God,  and  thus  recovering  the  government  for 
God  and  for  himself,  (/)  from  the  enemies  who  had  usurped  it. 
That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage  under  discussion, 
appears  to  me  to  be  confirmed  also  by  what  immediately  fol- 
lows.   For  St.  Paul  clearly  shews,  in  i.  Cor.  xv.  27,  that  r. 

(e;  V.  2.  (/)  n.  4.  (g-)  Heb.  x.  13. 

ih)  Heb.  VII.  23—25.  <S)  Rom.  vi.  9.    Heb.  vn.  25.  24. 

(j)  Ps.  II.  2.  Uc)  Rev.  XI.  17.  xix.  6.  (/)  xi.  15. 


4  e  Comp.  11.  Chron.  viii.  2.  Obss.  gramm.  p.  357. 

5  0  That  hostile  power  is  meant,  is  shewn  not  only  by  the  explanation 
{irhfAi  Tdwf  'EX©POT'2),  subjoined  m  v.  25,  but  by  the  very  word 
fcxTrtg^wVj)  in  r.  24,  which,  like  the  word  dirtKi'vtrai/uivot  and  similar  ex- 
pressions (Col.  ii.  15),  shews  plainly,  tha^t  inifjuical  t^iX^i  «*'  l^ovr'i*t 
are  intended. 

s  1  See  Rev.  vi.  16.  17.  xvii.  14.  xix.  11  ss.  Ps.  ii.  9.  12.  ex.  3.  Also 
the  loit  enemy  (i.  Cor.  xv.  26)  Christ  shall  destroy  (v.  21  s.  67.  John^ 
V.  21—29.  VI.  39  s.    Phil.  m.  21.). 


191 

"25  by  no  means  expresses  in  the  words  a^^jg  a  a  limit  and  end 
of  Christ's  government ;  but  that  all  that  we  are  to  understand 
is,  that  all  things,  and  therefore  all  enemies  also,  (m)  are  to  be 
subjected  to  the  empire  of  Christ.  According  to  this  interpreta- 
tion, therefore,  the  general  drift  of  the  Apostle  will  be  this  : 
that "  for  all  ^^  the  friends  of  Christ  "^  who,  after  the  example  of 
himself  who  was  the  first  that  rose  again,  (n)  have  been  re- 
called from  death  to  a  life  of  blessedness,  (o)  an  end  ^  is  at 

(m)  V.  25  s.  (n)  v.  20.  (o)  v.  23. 


3  2  Not  only  are  these  the  only  persons  mentioned  in  v.  23  (we 
know,  indeed,  that  h  th  Treifiovvi-J.  civrou  he  will  restore  life  to  others 
also  ;  but  it  will  not  be  such  as  to  deserve  the  name,  but  only  death  and 
penal  suffering  (John,  v.  29);),  but  besides  this,  the  whole  context 
speaks  not  of  the  dead  in  general,  but  concerning  those  particularly  of 
the  KSKOtfjiiifjtivoi,  who,  'EN  XPI2Tn  Kot/unBivrtf  (v.  18.),  shall,  in  their 
own  order  and  place,  obtain  the  same  life  to  which  Christ  first  attained 
{v.  23.  20.  49.  comp.  with  Phil.  in.  21.)  ;  a  life  more  happy  than  this 
present,  not  sought  after  by  all  (i.  Cor.  xv.  19.),  but  properly  by  those 
only  who  have  had  faith  in  Christ  (v.  19.)  and  in  his  gospel  for  the  at- 
tainment of  their  salvation  (v.  14.  17.  2.),  and  who,  on  account  of  theic 
love  for  Christ,  and  for  that  better  life  to  which  they  believed  him  to 
have  gone  before,  (v.  14.  17.  4  ss  )  have  suffered  multiplied  hard- 
ships (t?  19-  30  ss  )  : — or,  in  short,  the  3e»«V«ff/c  of  which  St.  Paul  speaks 
in  this  passage,  is  joined  with  ^na-ixtiai  ^ioZ  «x«§ovc»/Mt«t  (v.  50),  an  ob- 
ject worthy  of  the  most  ardent  endeavours  (».  58.),  and  of  the  warmest 
gi-atitude  {v.  54—57).     Comp.  Phil.  in.  11.  and  Obss.  gramm.  p.  32. 

5  3  As  all  those  who  have  believed  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus  concerning 
life  eternal,  who  are  no  more  h  Tetli  d/jiA^rUic  (»  17.),  who  Koijuiivrat 
£»  XV^^?  (^'  ^8.),  who  are  not  unwilling,  for  the  sake  of  Christ  and  in 
the  hope  of  a  belter  life,  to  pass  the  present  in  misery  {v  19),  and  who 
are  among  that  number  of  mortals  of  whom  Christ  is  the  first  (».  20), — 
die  on  account  of  Adam  :  so  these  same  shall  also  be  all  blessed  through 
Christ  with  a  life  {v.  22.)  and  resurrection  (i'.  21.)  which  is  not  death 
and  punishment  (ngiV/f ,  John,  v.  29.),  but  exactly  opposite  to  the  death 
introduced  by  Adam  (i.  Cor.  xv.  21.).     Comp.  note  52. 

54  "  eTta  (after  the  ivtiaTetcris  i.  Cor.  xv.  23)  to  Tf^ec  (that  istr*/. 
comp.  Mark,  xiii.  7-  Luke,  xxi.  9.  with  Matt.  xxiv.  6. 14.),  then,  when 
the  time  of  the  dead  shall  have  come  (Rev.  xi.  18.),  TEAE20H2ETAI 
TO  fAUT»^tor  rou  3-2oy,  ds  tvayytKivt  toTc  Iuvtov  Sovxoit  Tttt  7rga<^»T«/c 
(x.  7.),  so  that  yiyavt,  xxr.  6.  may  have  the  fullest  force  possible-" 
Comp.  <viK9iy  Luke,  xxii.  37- 


192  THE  MEAMMti  Ol' 

hand,  (p)  to  which  both  the  expectations  of  behevers  are  di- 
rected, (q)  and  the  divine  promises,  upon  which  these  ex- 
pectations rest,  all  point,  (r)  For  that  this  is  as  it  were  the 
scope  and  end  of  the  divine  promises,  that  the  empire  of 
Christ  will  at  length  so  far  prevail,  that  all  enemies  shall  be 
subjected  to  him,  (5)  of  whom  death  must  be  reckoned  the 
last,^^  {t)  which  will  be  destroyed  by  the  resurrection  of  those 
who  have  died  in  faith,  (w)  For  that  God  ^°  has  put  all  things, 
and  therefore  all  enemies,  under  him.  (v)  That,  therefore, 
when  Clirist  shall  have  destroyed  death,(ro)  and  also  (x)  every 
opposing  power,  and  shall  thus  have  restored  the  kingdom  to 
the  Father ;  t.  e.  when  he  shall  have  caused  it  to  come  to 
pass,  that  God  every  where  "  prevails,  and  his  majesty  is  uni- 

(p)  v.H.  (q)  V.  19.  (r)  V.  25.  27. 

{s)  V.  25.  comp.  with  Ps.  ex.  1.  (t)  i.  Cor.  xv.  2^ 

(w)  V.  54—57.  iv)  V.  27.  com^.  with  Ps.  viii.  7.  note  68. 

(w)  1.  Cor.  XV.  23.  54.     (ct)  v.  26. 


5  5  Many  enemies  shall  be  subdued  (Rev.  xviii.  xix.  xx.  9.  10.)  before 
all  the  children  of  God  shall  have  risen  to  life  {v  12).  But  as  soon  as 
these  shall  have  come  to  life,  all  the  wicked  have  been  subdued,  and  are 
paying;  the  punishment  of  their  rebellion  (v.  15.).  After  this  there  is  no 
death  (xXi.  4.)  except  in  hell  (v.  8.) ;  and  not  indeed  here  does  the  an- 
cient form  of  death  continue,  but  a  death  of  a  far  different  kind  (SeTiwrigoc 
S-ara-Toc)  reigns  there,  an  abiding  testimony  of  the  victory  and  power  of 
Christ  (ii.  Thess.  i-  9.).  As  this  abstract  docir'me  was  to  be  represented  6y 
a  vision,  and  placed  before  the  eyes  of  St.  John,  death  and  aS»s  are  de- 
picted (comp.  Rev.  vi.  8.)  as  an  enemy  (comp.  i.  Cor.  xv.  26.  54s.),  op- 
posed to  the  peace  of  them  that  are  heirs  of  God  (».  50.),  and  fellow-citi- 
zens of  Christ ;  and,  with  other  (Rev.  xx.  15)  enemies  of  Christ,  are  intro- 
duced (xx.  14.)  as  conquered  by  him  (comp.  i.  Cor.  xv  57.  21  s.),  and  cast 
into  hell.  If  OEDERhad  only  been  willing  to  perceive  this  circumstance, 
and  to  distinguish  the  figure  (Rev.  xx.  14,)  from  the  thing  signified  (xxi. 
4.) ;  or,  in  other  words,  to  seek  the  interpretation  of  the  former  of  theso 
two  places  from  the  latter,  he  might  easily  have  forborne  the  ridicule 
in  which  he  has  thought  proper  to  indulge.  (Comp.  Christl.  freye  Un- 
ters.  tiher  sogenannte  Offenb.  Joh.  p.  123  s.  308  s.) 

5  a  That  both  Cvhu^tv  in  v.  27,  and  5-«  in  v.  25,  refer  to  the  more  re- 
mote (comp.  Obss.  gramm.  p.  402.)  3-icc  khI  7rsiT«g,  not  to  the  nearer 
;^5»roc  (to  which  without  doubt  the  word  K<tTttgy«fii  in  i.  Cor.  xv.  24. 
had  reference),  is  evident  not  only  from  v.  27  s.  but  from  Ps.  ex.  1.  viii. 
7.  Comp.  also  ex.  6.  6.  (note  48.). 

s  7  nst(7»,  r.  28,  appears  to  be  neuter,  which  is  frequently  used  to  fle- 


"  THE  KINGDOM  OP  HEAVEN."  193 

versalJy  acknowledged,^  some  rejoicing  exceedingly  in  God 
their  king,^  and  deriving  their  whole  pleasure  and  happiness  ^ 
from  this  source,*^*  from  which  they  see  and  inwardly  feel  it 
to  flow,®^  i.  e,  from  the  all-powerful  and  benignant  government 
of  Gk)d,  with  never-ceasing  reverence,"^ — others,  (y)  on  the 
contrary,^  feeling  with  terror  ^^  the  power  of  his  just  ^  govern- 
ment, and  not  daring  to  open  their  mouths  against  him ; — 
then  shall  come  the  end."  (z)     Nor  should  it  seem  strange, 

(y)  V.  24  s.  (2)  V.  24. 


note  place  (comp.  Acts,  ix.  32,)  and  time.  Thus  God  is  said  by  Philo, 
when  describing  his  omnipresence  (de  sacrif.  Abel.  et.  Caini.  p.  141.  ed. 
Franc). 5rx>»gaVai  IIANTA  MA  IlANTnN,  to  fill  all  things  every  where; 
and  by  St.  Paul,  when  setting  forth  the  divine  goodness,  TrXwgouo-flati  (to  fill) 
Ta  IIANTA  EN  nA2I,  all  things  every  where  and  always,  all  things 
completely.  Eph.  i.  23.  Comp.  Diss,  de  sensu  vocis  Trhvigoiifxti  in  N.  T. 
note  64. 

5  8  As  that  is  said  to  be  nothing,  which  has  little  or  no  power,  strength, 
&c.,  and  has  nothing  to  boast  of  (Acts,  v.  36.  Gal.  vi.  3.):  so,  on  the 
contrary,  God  is  all  things  (i.  Cor.  xv.'28.),  because  every  created 
thing,  however  excellent,  owes  every  thing  it  has  to  glory  in  to  God  ; 
and  even  the  man  {v.  21.)  Jesus  himself,  constituted  by  God  the  Lord  of 
of  all  things  {v.  27,  comp.  with  Ps.  viii.  7.  5.),  possesses  this  his  kingdom 
as  a  divine  gift  (Phil.  11.  9.).  In  this  sense,  indeed,  (which  is  set  forth 
in  I.  Cor.  xv.  28.)  God  is  all  things  every  where,  even  before  his  enemies 
have  been  subdued,  in  whose  foolish  and  impious  (Ps.  n.  4.)  cpinion 
God  passes  for  nothing,  or  who  account  him  as  nothing,  although  he  is 
all  things,  and  despise  him  tx.  4.  xiv.  1.),  or,  at  any  rate,  prevent  (i.  Cor. 
XV.  26,)  the  glory  of  his  kingdom  from  shining  evidently  forth.  But 
Christ  shall  restore  the  government  to  the  Father,  or  shall  vindicate  his 
glory  and  authority,  by  the  conquest  of  all  his  enemies;  that,  as  God 
is  in  fact  all  in  all,  so  he  may  every  where  be  acknowledged  to  be  such, 
and  may  no  more  be  accounted  as  nothing,  but  may  every  where  pos^ 
sess  supreme  authority.     Comp.  Kypke,  ad  v.  28, 

s  9  Comp.  Rev.  xxi.  3.  7.  xxii.  3. 
fio  XXI.  6-  4  s. 

6  I  XXII.  1.  5.  XXI.  22  s. 

8  3    XXII.  4. 

6  3  r.  3  4. 

C4  XX.  10.  15.  XXI.  8.  II.  Thess.  i.  8. 

«5  Rer.  VI.  15  ss. 

e  8  u.  Thess.  i.  9.  5  s.  Rev.  xxii.  12.  xiv.  10- 

25 


194  THE  MEAIMNtr  OJi' 

that  the  discourse  in  v.  24,  changed  from  the  government  (a) 
of  Christy  who  *^  it  was  said  should  destroy  every  opposing 
power,  to  the  Father,  to  whom  the  kingdom  is  said  to  be 
dehvered  up  by  Christ.  The  reason  of  this  the  Apostle  adds 
in  V,  27.  28  :  "  when  it  is  written,®^  that  all  things  are;?w/  under 
him  (by  another),  it  is  manifest,  that  he  is  to  be  excepted  who 
put  all  things  under  him.      Since  ^  moreover  ^°  all  things  are 

(a)  V.  25. 


8  7  He  delivers  up  the  kingdom  to  the  Father  (i.  Cor.  xv.  24),  he 
must  reign  (v.  25),  until  all  enemies  are  subdued.  This  same  person, 
therefore,  uses  his  own  power  for  the  destruction  of  every  opposing 
power.    Comp.  note  51. 

6  8  So  hTTK  must  be  rendered,  being  put  for  sZ/i^^lycy  (Luke,  iv.  12.), 
or  (v.  8.  10.)  ytygttfAfAvov  jT.  Comp.  Heb.  iv.  3.  4.  and  Obss.  gramm. 
p.  412.  But  it  appears  from  this  place,  that  the  preceding  words  were 
taken  from  the  Scripture.  The  Apostle  has  elsewhere  (Heb.  ii.  6—9,) 
quoted  the  same  prophecy  (Ps.  viii.  7.). 

6  9  We  are  no  more  compelled  to  consider  Srav  in  this  place  as  in- 
dicative of  time,  than  we  are  the  same  word  in  v.  27 ; — the  sense,  on  the 
contrary,  seems  to  be  this  :  "  since  it  is  said,  that  all  things  are  -put  under 
him,  it  is  evident,  that  there  is  some  one  person  to  be  excepted  from 
the  number  of  all,  he,  namely,  who  put  all  things  under  him ;  yes,  I 
say,  since  all  things  are  fvi  under  him,  it  is  still  further  most  clear,  that 
there  is  a  certain  person  superior,  he,  namely,  who  was  able^o  put  all 
things  under  his  power.  Comp.  oTcey  Rom.  ii.^l4.  and  Aristot.  de 
mundo.  c.  4.  (in  Hoogeveej^,  Doctr.  parlic.  graec.  ex  ed.  Schuzii. 
p.  577  [  p.  386.  Ed.  Glasg.  1813— Tr.  ]  ). 

1  0  Comp.  (Ts  Heb.  iii.  17.  18.  "  When  it  fs  said  (Ps.  xcv.  7.  8.) :  to- 
day, while  ye  hear  the  voice  of  God,  do  not  be  perverse,  asin  the  place  of 
rebellion  (Meribah)  ;  who  (comp.  Raphel.  Annott.  ex  Xenoph.  ad  Matt. 
xxvu.  23.  and  Loesner.  Obss.  e.  Phil,  ad  Act.  xix.  35),  when  they  had 
heard,  rebelled  ?  Did  not  all  they  (comp.  Raphel.  Annott.  ex  Arriano 
ad  Jac.  I.  17.)  that  were  brought  out  of  Egypt  by  Moses  ?  (was  it  not 
clearly  such  as  were  on  the  way  to  Palestine,  and  also  had  a  promise  of 
vest  before  them  ?)  With  whom  moreover  was  God  disple?ised,  but  with 
those  who  sinned  against  him  (comp.  Numbers,  -xiv.  34.  with  xxxni.  9. 
Add  Heb.  x.  26)  ?  Whom  moreover  did  he  deprive  by  an  oath  of  the 
promised  rest,  but  (Numb.  xiv.  3,)  those  that  had  no  faith  in  God?" 
There  are  three  points  which  the  Apostle  establishes,  Heb.  in.  15  ss.  by 
the  example  of  the  Israelites:  1.  that  the  simple  hearing  and  know- 
ledge of  a  promise  are  of  little  avail  to  us  (comp.  iv.  2.).  2.  that  apostasy 
after  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  (x.  26.)  precludes  an  entrance  into  the 
promised  blessedness ;  but  that  this  apostasy,  3.  arises  from  a^r/rj*  (iii. 


••  TIIE  KINGDOM  OF  HKAVEN.*'  195 

put  under  him  '^  (by  the  Father),  the  Son  himseh^  also  will  be 
subject  ^-'  to  him.  who  lias  put  all  things  under  him,  so  that 


19.  IV.  2  3.  11).  comp  III-  12.  "'Lest  there  he  perceived  to  be  in  any  one 
(comp.  11.  Cor.  iv.  7.  and  Obss..graram.  p.  14.  n.  3.)  air  evil  dms-tc  heart, 
by  its  departure  from  God." 

7  •  The  words  do  not  mean,  that  at  the  period  when  all  things  shall 
Ic  put  under  the  Son,  and  every  enemy  subdued,  the  Son  also  him- 
self will  be  subject ;  but,  that,  since  all  things  are  (comp,  wwote- 
TatjtTtfi  V.  27,)  put  under  him  by  the  decree  t*  vTrorct^^avroiy  who,  be- 
fore all  could  see  it  with  their  own  eyes  (Heb  ii.  8),  frdvr*  TIIE- 
TASEN  vno  rve  irSS'tts  airS  (i.  Cor.  XV.  27),  it  follows,  that  the  Son 
also  is  subject  to  him,  from  whom  he  has  received  this  extensive 
dominion  (comp.  note  38,).  Bat  if  we  take  the  words  of  St.  Paul 
in  the  former  sense,  we  shall  thereby  deny,  that  the  Son,  who  is  never- 
theless evidently  considered  in  reference  to  his  human  nature  («.  21. 
45  ss.  comp.  with  Phil  m,  21),  to  which  power  is  given  over  all 
things  (i.  Cor.  xv.  27.  Heb.  ii.  6—9),  was  subject  to  the  Father  before 
he  had  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  him,  having  vanquished  his 
enemies.  But  the  Messiah  plainly  declares,  in  Ps.  xvi.  2,  that  he  de- 
rives all  his  happiness  and  dignity  (v.  11.)  from  Jehovah,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  God  is  all,  even  to  him,  and  not  simply  to  the  things  which 
are  subjected  to  his  government  Comp.  Schnurrer,  Anim.  ad  quae- 
dam  loca  Fsalmorum,  p.  7.  Fascic.  i. 

7  2  Both  this  future,  and  tots  which  precedes  it,  seem  to  mean  a 
logical  inference,  not  something  following  in  the  course  of  time,  and  to 
have  the  same  force  as  if  it  had  been  said :  on  St  uvoTirttKrat  ttura  frd. 
jr*vT4t,  AHaON  OTI  (comp.  t>.  27,)  jteti  atuTOf  o  itk  rnOTA22ETAI. 
And  ToTf  may  either  be  rendered  therefore  (comp.  Jer.  xxii,  15  s.  in  the 
Hebrew) ;  or  it  may  be  redundant  (Ps.lxix.  5)  ;  or  rather  it  may  answer 
to  the  preceding  oTitv,  as  in  that  passage  of  Plato  (0pp.  Lugd.  1590.  p. 
158.  [  Ed.  Bipont.  Vol.  ii.p.  248— Ed.  Bekker,  Part  ii.  Vol.  ii.  p.  177.— 
Tr.]  ):  OTAN  rifl  to  <f>*yTaVft*  avrh  {a-o^iTtiy)  aTrttrZf  ^ufttv  kai  tjJf 
T«;i(;yw  thdi  Tivat  aTrnr^riKnv  etuT?,  TOTE  jroTJgov  -^iZSi  So^d^uf  vnr 
^wpC"*  «(«»'i'  <j>aVe^«»  imo  tjjc  iMiva  rrs^viif,  >>  ri  ttot'  igSfitv;  comp^ 
Lxx.  Prov.  n.  5.  Ps  xix.  14  csix.  92.  But  J  understand  iheftUure  here 
in  the  same  way  as  in  Rom.  vi.  5.  (where  axx*  is  used  instead  of  tot«, 
to  connect  the  inference  with  the  premises)  n.  26.  i.  Cor.  xiv-  7—9. 11. 
and  in  the  argument  wliich  immediately  follows  (i  Cor.  xv.  29,)  the 
passage  under  discussion  {v.  28.)  :  "  else  (if  it  sho  jld  be  otherwise,  t^an 
as  we  have  above?;.  20 — 23  endeavoured  to  shew,),  what  shall  they 
DO,  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead  (comp.  John,  xi.  4.  Rom.  xv.  8.  Acts, 
XV.  26.),  with  this  design,  namely,  that  (John,  in.  5  Tit.  m  5.  7.  Gal.  m. 
26  ss.  comp.  with  iv.  7.)  they  may  have  the  privilege  of  entering  (i.  Thess. 
\v.  17.  ii.  Thess.  u.  1.  John,  xvn.  24.  Heb.  xii  23  s.)  into  eternal  fellow- 
ship, not  only  with  Jesus  himself,  but  with  those  who  iKotfAnd-uTctv  (i. 
/ 


196  THE  MEANING  OF 

God  is  therefore  all  in  all."  {h)  When  St.  Paul  magnificent- 
ly describes  that  great  power  of  the  man  (c)  Jesus,  which  is 
able  to  overthrow  every  enemy,  {d)  and  even  death  itself,  (c) 
this  kingdom  of  Christ,  thus  august,  and  delivered  from  the  in- 
jury and  destruction  of  every  opposing  power,  he  gives  to 
God  the  Father,  (/)  not  in  order  to  shew  that  it  ceases  to  be 
Chrisfs,  but  that  all  things  may  at  last  be  referred  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father  f'^  especially  {g)  as  the  Psalms  which 
he  had  in  his  mind,  when  he  spoke  of  that  rs'Xoj,  (h)  treated 
the  same  subject  in  a  similar  manner,  (i)  But  as  we  read, 
both  that  the  Father  subjected  all  enemies  to  Christ,  {j  )  and 
that  Christ  subjected  them  to  himself,  (k)  so  he  who  is  said  in 
I.  Cor.  XV.  24.  to  restore  the  kingdom  to  the  Father,  after  the 
discomfiture  of  his  enemies,  may  also  be  said  to  assert  the  au- 
thority and  dignity  of  his  own  government.  In  other  places 
we  certainly  find  it  said,  that,  even  after  the  conquest  of  his 
enemies,  Christ  shall  continue  to  reign.  (/) 

Ch)  Comp.  note  58.  71.         (c)  Note  71.  (d)  v.  24. 

(e)w.  26.  21s.  (/)  w.  24.  (g-)  r.  27  s. 

(A)  V.  24.  (i)  V.  25.  27.  comp.  with  Ps.  ex.  1.  viii.  7. 1.  2- 

0)  Note  56.  (A:)  Note  67. 

(I)  Rev.  xxn.  1.  3.  xxi.  22  s.  xi.  15. 


Cor.  XV.  18.  I.  Thess.  tv.  16.)  i?  awrm.  t.  c.  ovtic  (Rom.  xvi.  11.  7. 
comp.  with  13.),  as  it  Were,  U  etbroZ  (i.  Cor.  xv.  23.  comp.  at  Phil.  i. 
1.  a.).  But  if  the  dead  rise  not  at  all,  and  thus  (i.  Cor.  xv.  16.  18.)  both 
Jesus  and  el  KoifAnB-ivra  h  alrce  airi^Kovro,  and  are  no  more,  why  are 
they  baptized  for  them  ?  How  absurd  will  be  the  conduct  of  those;, 
who,  in  the  expectation  of  enjoying  salvation  and  eternal  life,  with 
.Tesus  and  his  friends  who  have  departed  this  life,  become  baptized,  if 
there  be  no  life  after  death  ;  so  that  Jesus  has  not  risen  again,  and  all 
the  pious  dead  who  received  baptism  were  miserably  deceived  in  the 
hopes  which  they  entertained  ! 

7  3  Comp.Phil.ii.il.  Heb.  ni.  4.  r.  Thcsame  design  is  pursued  by  the 
Book  of  Revelation,  (comp.  neue  Apol.  der  Offenb.  Joh.  $.  26.22.  note 
6.)  which  I  think  is  referred  to  by  St.  Paul  in  this  same  xvth  Chap,  of 
1.  Cor.;  (1.  c.  $.  13.)  and  for  that  reason  I  have  the  more  frequently 
compared  it  with  the  declarations  of  the  Apostle. 


'*  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN."  19* 

§.  VI. 

3.  Its  extent. 

As  of  all  who  have  been  seated  upon  the  throne  of  David, 
he  who  sits  last  upon  it,(m)  is  infinitely  the  greatest  in  respect 
to  the  duration  of  his  life  and  kingdom  ;  so  his  authority  and 
empire  are  not  circumscribed  with  the  narrow  boundaries  of 
Palestine,  over  which  David  reigned.  For  although  he  is 
called  king  of  Sion  {n)  and  of  the  Israelities  ;  (o)  yet  we  are 
not  warranted  thereby  in  limiting  his  empire  to  these  regions. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  under  that  illustrious  off*spring  of  David 
the  boundaries  of  his  father*s  kingdom  are  said  to  be  so  ex- 
tended, (Ps.  ex.  2.^*)  that  the  king  of  Sion  (p)  has  possession  of 
the  whole  earth,  [q)  and  all  its  inhabitants  have  either  submitted 
to  his  authority ,(r)  or  are  forcibly  controlled  by  him.  (s)  But 
further,  not  even  by  these  limits  is  Christ's  kingdom  circum- 
scribed or  bounded,  but  we  read  that  it  extends  as  far  {v.  L 
Eph.i.20— 22.  I.  Cor.  XV.  27.^^  Phil.  n.  9—11.  Matt.xxvui. 
18.)  as  the  kingdom  of  God  himself  For  although  the  man  Jesus 
both  has  the  peculiar  charge  (t)  of  human  affairs  generally, 
whether  as  it  respects  men  living  on  this  earth,*^^  or  the  dead, 

(?n)  Luke,  i.  32.    Acts,  ii.  30.  (n)  Ps.  ii.  6. 

(o)  Lul^c,  I.  33.    John,  xii.  13. 15.  comp.  with  IG. 

(p)  II.  6.        (q)  V.  8.        (T)  V.  10  ss.    Isai.  m.  15.  liii.  10  ss.  Amos,  ix.  12. 

(s)  Ps.  ex.  2.  II.  4  s.  9. 12.  ex.  3. 1.  5  s.  corap.  note  67.  56. 

(0  John,  X.  16.  V.  27—29.    Rom.  xiv.  9.    Acts,  x.  42.  xvu.  S;. 


■7  4"  Jehovah  shall  extend  (comp.  Ezek.  ii.  9.  Exod.  xxii-  7.)  the 
sceptre  of  thy  kingdom  out  of  Sion ;  t.  e.  thou  shalt  not  reign  here  only, 
but  other  regions  also  shall  obey  thy  sceptre,  which  belongs  to  them 
also." 

7  5  Comp.  Reussii  Opusc.  Fascic.  i.  p  400  s. 

•7  6  Hence  the  world  has  very  properly  received  the  name  of  0ii<rt- 
MiA  Tou  Xi'^"^  (Matt.  XIII.  41.)  or,  the  province  of  Christ.  For  the 
the  Lord  compares  it  (r.  38,)  with  a  field,  which,  after  the  good  fruits 
have  for  a  long  time  been  mingled  with  the  tares,  shall  at  length  be 
purified.    But  it  is  clear  from  many  passages  (c.  g.  Mark,  vi.  23.    Esth. 


198 


THE  MEANING  OP 


and  attends  particularly  to  the  administration  (m)  of  the  faith-' 
fill  commonwealth  of  men,  or  the  church  f  yet,  fbr  the  good 
of  this  church,  (x)  he  governs  all  things  without  exception,(i^) 
even  angels  themselves. (z)  From  all  which  it  is  easy  to  per- 
ceive, that  the  sitting  of  Christ  upon  the  throne  of  David  may, 
on  the  one  hand,  be  reckoned  a  real  succession  to  David's 
place,  inasmuch  as  («)  for  the  purpose  of  fulfilling  (6)  the  di- 
vine promises,  made  to  David,  Christ  actually  sprang  from 
David,  in  that  same  land  which  his  father  had  possessed,  and, 
on  account  of  this  peculiar  relationship  with  the  Jewish 
people,  (c)  in  the  first  place^  thought  proper  to  present  him- 
self (d)  particularly  to  them  {e)  as  their  king  so  long  expected 
and  desired,  and  announce  to  them  the  approach  of  his  king- 
dom ;  (/)  in  the  next  place,  when  he  had  ascended  to  hea- 
ven, made  the  first  proofs  of  his  exaltation  to  be  exhibited 
within  the  ancient  empire  of  David,  (g)  and  invited  the  people 
of  Israel  first,  through  the  medium  of  his  messengers,  to  his 
service,  and  to  the  attainment  of  the  happiness  of  his  heavenly 
kingdom,  being  about  to  add  to  these  benefits  others  besides, 
which  we  are  warranted  to  look  for  with  certainty  ;  {h)  and, 
finally,  extended  his  sceptre  to  the  other  nations  also  out  of 
Sion,{i)  and  caused  them  to  be  brought  by  the  instrumentali- 
ty of  Jews  (Acts,  XV.  7J'  Rom.  xi.  12  s."'®)  into  fellowship 
and   communion  {k)   with  the  citizens,  who  were    his  fa- 

(u)  Eph.  V.  23  ss.    Col.  1. 10.      (x)  Eph.  i.  22.     (y)  v.  20  ss.  , 

(2)  Heb.  I.  2—4.  6.    I.  Pet.  iii.  22.  (a)  Luke,  i.  32. 

(6)  Rom.  XV.  8.  (c)  ix.  5.  {d)  Matt.  xxi.  1  ss.  note  82. 

(e)  Acts,  III.  25  s.    Matt.  viii.  12.  (/)  John,  xviii.  37.  §.  iv. 

(g-)  Acts,  II.  33 — 36.  III.  16  ss.  iv.  10  ss.  v.   12  ss.  comp.  with  i.  4.  Luke, 

XXIV.  49.  (h)  Rom  xi.  2.?  ss. 

(i)  Ps.  ex.  2.  (k)  V.  16  ss.  xv.  27.  Eph.  iii.  6.  ii.  12  ss.. 


I.  22.  III.  13.  VIII.  12  s.)  that  ^cta-ixHa  not  only  signifies  empire  itself,  or 
supreme  power  (e.  g.  Ps.  cm.  19.  cxlv.  11 — 13.  Rev.  xn.  10.  xvii.  12. 
18.),  but  also  the  region  or  province,  over  which  this  authority  extends- 

7  f  Hence  the  multitude  of  those  who  yield  a  pious  obedience  to 
Jesus,  their  king,  or  the  church,  is  sometimes  with  propriety  called  the 
/3cta-iMict  or  (comp.  Matt,  xn  25  s.  Amos,  ix.  8.  Gen.  xx.  9,  comp. 
with  4. 7.)  commonwealth  of  the  Son  of  God  (Col.  i.  13.). 

7  8  Comp.  Bengel,  on  this  passage. 

"7  9  Comp.  Diss,  de  sensu  vocis  ^r^»'gwft«,  §.  vn, 


"  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN."  199 

thers,  of  the  stock  of  Israel.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
government  of  David,  held  by  mere  mortal  men  (/)  for  a 
brief  space  of  time,  and  having  jurisdiction  only  over  a  small 
portion  of  the  earth,  is  so  far  different  from  the  eternal  and 
widely-extended  empire  of  Christ,  that  the  throne  of  Christ 
cannot  be  called  the  throne  of  David,  except  Jiguratively,  inas- 
much as  that  divine  (m)  government  over  the  Israelites,  vs^hich 
jj^as  transferred  (i.  Chron.  xxviii.5.^°)  to  David  and  his  pos- 
terity, as  to  the  sons  (w)  of  God<  the  king  of  the  Israelites,  was 
a  shadow  and  image  of  the  divine  government  over  the  uni- 
verse, (o)  conferred  upon  that  man  who  sprang  from  the  stock 
of  David,  and  who  was  much  more  truly  the  Son  of  God.  {p) 
Which  being  established,  it  follows,  that  as  Christ  sits  not  on 
the  throne  of  David  itself,  but  on  its  antitype,  {q)  so  also  the 
Israelites,  over  whom  Christ  reigns,  (r)  are  not  only  the 
Israelites  themselves,  but  the  antitype  of  this  commonwealth, 
i.  e.  the  whole  commonwealth  of  God,  and,  in  a  certain  pe- 
culiar (5)  sense,  his  church.^^ 

(J.)  Comp.  Heb.  vii.  23.       (m)  1.  Sam.  xii.  12.  vin.  7. 

(n)  Ps.  Lxxxix.  27.    11.  Sam.  vii.  14.     i.  Chron.  xxviii.  6. 

(0)  Heb.  I.  2—4.  (jt>)  V.  5.  Luke,  i.  32.  (q)  v.  32. 

(r)  V.  33.  (s)  Note  77. 


8  0  David  and  his  posterity  sat  upon  the  throne  of  the  kingdom  of  Je- 
hovah, but  of  that  only  which  had  to  do  with  the  Israelites  (v.  6.)  ;  whereas 
Christ,  on  the  contrary,  sits  on  the  throne  of  that  (Ps.  ex.  1.  comp.  note 
48.  75.)  kingdom  of  Jehovah,  which  is  so  extensive,  that  it  reaches  over 
all  created  things  (Eph.  i.  20 — 22.),  and  that  David  himself,  although  in 
that  former  sense  he  sat  on  a  divine  throne,  and  knew  that  by  the  time 
this  remote  offspring  of  his  should  reign,  he  would  have  been  long  since 
dead  (11.  Sam.  vii-  12.  19.),  yet  declared  that  he  himself  would  never- 
theless be  within  the  kingdom  and  jurisdiction  of  this  his  OAvn  progeny. 
SeePs.  ex.  1.  where  Ihave  preserved  the  reading  •'jiN  (Matt.  xxii.  44), 
which  declares,  that  David  regarded  the  Messiah  as~i^w  own  lord,  or 
willingly  submitted  to  him  (comp.  v.  43.  45.  with  r.  Pet.  m.  6.)  in  a 
manner  worthy  of  a  lord  reigning  for  ever  (Ps.  ex.  4.  note  45.)  with  God 
(v.  1.  note  48. 75).  Comp.  Muntinghe,  Besondre  Anm.  zu  den  Psalmen, 
p.  168  ss. 

8  1  In  Amos,  ix.  lis.  it  is  said  that  other  nalions,aho,  different  from 
the  Israelites,  shall  profess  the  name  of  God,  and  thus  be  in  the  king- 
dom and  empire  of  David,  or  among  the  number  of  the  Israelites  (Acts, 


200  THE  MEANING  OF 

§.  VII. 
4.  Its  administration. 

Since  therefore  the  kingdom  of  heaven  neither  has  any 
limit  to  its  duration,  (t)  nor  is  confined  within  certain  regions 
of  the  universe  ;(w)  its  form  must  be  in  all  respects  and  widely 

(t)  $.  V.  (w)   §.  VI. 


XV.  17.  14.  comp.  with  ii.  Chron.  vii.  14.  add  Rom.  ii.  26  ss.  iv.  16  ss. 
12.  XI.  17  ss.  Gal.  vi.  16.).  But  let  us  look  into  this  passage  of  Amos : 
"At  a  certain  (comp.  Neue  Apol.  der  Offenb.  Joh.  p.  325.)  time,  or,  at 
length  {/uitrd  txut*  Acts,  xv.  16  ),  unless  you  would  prefer:  at  that  re- 
markable period  (comp.  ii.  Tim.  i.  18.  and  Obss.  gramm.  p.  122.),  the 
time  of  the  Messiah,  1  will  most  completely  (this  meaning  is  clearly  in- 
dicated by  the  accumulation  of  expressions,  all  conveying  the  same 
idea,)  renew  the  kingdom  of  David,  which  is  so  desolated  (Amos,  ix. 
5  ss.)  that  it  seems  like  a  cottage  (Isai.  i.  8.)  ;  and,  as  in  other  days,  and 
particularly  in  the  time  of  David,  it  was  adorned  by  me,  so  now  also  I 
will  improve  and  enlarge  it,  so  that  in  the  renewed  tabernacle  of  David, 
or  within  his  kingdom  and  empire,  may  dwell  (Ps.  lxix.  36.  Ezek. 
XXXVI.  12.)  both  the  remnant  of  the  Idumeans  (to  whom  Amos,  1. 11  s. 
had  threatened  a  terrible  destruction),  even  as  foi'merly  (comp.  ix.  11.) 
David  had  reduced  this  people  under  his  authority  (n.  Sam.  vm.  14.), 
and  all  other  nations,  that  are  called  by  my  name."  The  word  ^>i 
(Amos.  IX.  12.)  I  consider  with  Louis  de  Dieu  (Animad-  ad  Act.  xv.  17), 
Fessel.  (Adv.  SS.  T.  1.  p.  390.)  and  perhaps  also  Bengel,  to  be  the  sign 
not  of  the  accusative,  but  of  the  nominative  (Obss.  gramm.  p.  264  s.) ; 
both  because  we  cannot  otherwise  easily  explain,  to  what  the  plural 
•j^yn"*^  refers,    and  especially  because  ^y^  when  it  refers  to  persons, 

•    •  -T 

usually  signifies  to  succeed  to  their  wealth,  which  shall  be  left  by  them  ; 
nor  indeed  do  I  think  it  was  the  design  of  the  prophet  to  threaten  the 
nations,  ioho  professed  the  name  of  God^  as  he  certainly  would  have  done, 
if  he  had  foretold  that  they  were  to  be  driven  out  from  their  dwelling- 
places  by  the  Jews.  Now  the  Idumeans  are  said  by  Josephus  (Antiq. 
Jud.  L.  xni.  c.  9.  $.  1.)  to  have  embraced  the  Jewish  religion,  a  hundred 
years,  and  more,  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  But  as  Amos  foretold,  that 
many  other  nations  also  should  profess  the  name  of  God,  and  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  David;  we  must  go  on  a  little  farther,  even  to  those 
times,  when  not  only  many  Idumeans,  who  had  been  long  united  with 
the  Jews  (Acts,  xxi.  20.)  in  civil  compact,  but  great  numbers  also  of 


••  THE  KINGDOM  OP  HEAVEN."  :20l 

different^  from  an  earthly  commonwealth.  For  he  who 
possesses  an  eternal  government  over  all  things,  not  only  can 
perform  many  things,  which  come  within  the  reach  of  no 
earthly  power,  however  mighty,  but  easily  dispenses  with 
many  external  aids,  which,  though  splendid  in  appearance, 
are  after  all  only  covers  for  human  weakness.  As  the  go- 
vernment of  David,  even  in  its  best  days,  was  certainly  by  no 
means  adequate  to  the  performance  of  those  things,  by 
which  (w)  his  offspring  proved,  at  Jerusalem,  his  kingdom  to 
be  divine  (x), — and  great  as  may  seem  to  be  the  glory  and 
splendor  of  his  triumph  over  those  nations,  whom  he  reduced 
by  his  arms  (y), — what  is  all  this  pomp,  in  comparison  with 
the  dignity  of  Christ,  who,  trusting  in  his  own  legitimate  and 
almighty  power  over  all  things,  dared  to  send  unarmed  mes- 
sengers through  the  Roman  empire,  {z)  and  even  into  Rome, 
with  this  order,  (a)  that  they  should  proclaim  him  lord  of  all 
men,  and  of  all  things  ;  and  in  this  way  obtained  the  obedi- 
ence of  many  thousands,  secured  not  by  force  of  arms,  of 
%vhich  he  certainly  stood  in  no  need,  who  could  protect  and 

(le)  Acts,  II.  2—4.  (i)  V.  S3  ss.         (y)  Comp.  John,  xviu.  56. 

it)  Comp.  Acts,  xvii.  6.  7.  (a)  Acts,  ii.  36.  x.  42.  xvii.  30  s. 


other  nations,  exulted  in  being  citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  David,  so 
wonderfully  enlarged  (Am.  ix.ll.)  when  Jesus  sat  upon  the  throne  of 
his  father,  and  in  being  a  people  devoted  to  God  (v.  12.  comp.  with 
Acts,  XV.  14.).  This  passage  St.  Luke  has  designedly  (u.  14  s.)  copied 
(».  17.)  from  the  lxx,  who  probably,  when  they  lighted  upon  it,  were 
ignorant  of  its  meaning  ;  being  led  in  the  translation  of  it,  as  they  fre- 
quently were  in  difficult  places,  rather  by  conjecture,  than  by  certaia 
reasoning.  One  thing  I  must  add,  that  eTriaKi-^etro  v.  14.  as  in  Ezra, 
1.  2.  should  be  rendered  has  charged  (comp.  Acts,  xv.  7.  x.  20.). 

8  a  Jesus  declared  this  with  the  greatest  plainness  both  by  wprds 
(John,  xviu.  36.)  and  deeds  ;  among  which  (comp.  the  above-mentioned 
work  of  Hess,  Sect.  i.  u.)  the  most  remarkable  is,  that,  in  order  the  more 
clearly  and  explicitly  to  leave  in  the  minds  of  his  countrymen  his  views 
in  regard  to  his  kingdom,  he  permitted  himself  (Luke,  xix.  30.  40.)  to  be 
publicly  saluted  king  of  the  Israelites  (Mark,  xi.  10.  John,  xu.  13.),  but, 
at  the  very  same  time,  openly  before  all,  and,  in  order  to  excite  the 
greater  attention,  with  tears,  predicted  destruction  (v.  41.)  to  that  very 
metropolis,  in  which  they  had  been  dreaming  that  he  was  just  about  to 
commence  his  reign  (v.  II.). 

26 


'iiiM,  THK   MKANlMi  OB' 

defend  his  messengers  sufficiently  well  with  his  own  (b)  aid 
alone,  wherever  they  might  travel,  but  by  love  and  benevo- 
lence. But  it  is  by  no  means  the  least  exhibition  of  the  great* 
ness  of  Christ,  that  he  is  not  obliged  to  inflict  immediate 
punishment  upon  the  rebellious,  but  can  for  a  length  of  time 
despise  their  arrogance :  (c)  securely  confident  that  it  shall 
never  come  to  pass,  either  that  they  shall  dethrone  him  from 
his  seat,  {d)  which  is  elevated  far  above  weak  mortals ;  or  that 
the  opportunity  shall  cease  (e)  for  baffling  their  attempts,  or 
turning  them  to  the  salvation  of  believers  ;  or  that  any  enemy 
can  escape  from  his  government  and  authority,  or  elude  his 
destined  punishment,  (/)  either  by  death,  (g)  or  any  other 
medium,  than  that  of  a  seasonable  and  humble  return  to  obedi- 
ence. (A)  This  heavenly  kingdom  is  therefore  distinguished, 
indeed,  by  some  acts  of  a  conspicuous  character,  and  which 
strike  the  attention  of  all  f^  among  which  stand  prominent 

(i)  Acts,  IV.  9  ss.  30.  (c)  Ps.  n.  1—4.  Heb.  x.  13.     (d)  Ps,  n.  6. 

(e;  ex.  2.  (/)  II.  5. 

(ff)  Rom.  XIV.  3.  John,  v.  28  s.  (A)  Ps.  ii.  10  ss. 


8  3  <'  Then,  when  the  Lord  shall  come  (Matt.  xsiv.  30.  37.  42.  50  s.  xxv, 
13.)>  the  administration  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (note  76.)  shall  be  as 
if  a  bridegroom,  out  of  a  number  of  virgins  going  out  to  meet  him, 
should  admit  to  the  marriage  solemnities  only  those,  whom,  coming  sud- 
denly after  some  delay,  he  found  prepared  for  him,  excluding  those  who 
pame  late."  (w.  1.)  But  that  the  form  of  expression,  bf/.otoe^»a-irAi  »  ^etct- 
XiisL  tUv  ^pavuv  AEKA  nAP0ENOl2,  does  not  mean,  that  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  properly  compared  to  ten  virgins,  may  be  seen  by  many  ex- 
amples; as,  for  instance,  the  administration  of  this  kingdom  is  not  pro- 
perly like  a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  or  a  net  (Matt.  xiu.  31.  47.) ;  but  like 
that  action,  whereby  either  a  small  grain  is  sown,  which  grows  up  to 
a  wonderful  size,  or  fish  of  all  kinds  are  caught,  which  are  afterwards 
to  be  separated  one  from  another.  In  short,  the  administration  of  the 
divine  kingdom  is  compared  to  the  whole  narrative  which  is  told ;  and  is 
said,  for  example,  to  be  as  ^/(Mark,  iv.  26)  any  one  should  sow  seed, 
and,  from  that  action,  by  degrees  ripe  fruits  should  grow  up  with  unob- 
served progress,  and  without  much  labor.  Comp.  Diss,  de  parabolis 
Christi,  §.  xix.  But  that  function  of  theheavenly  government,  which  re- 
lates to  the  distribution  of  rewards,  is  in  Matt.  xx.  1.  called,  in  general, 
(inciktitt  Tccr  j»'/)«tv»ir :  "  the  disfrihution  ofrewardsj  both  in  this  life  and  in 


203 

Ihe  rewards  and  punishments,  which  are  to  be  assigned  publicly 
by  the  king  in  his  own  appointed  time  :  (i)  but  there  are  some 
less  conspicuous,  though  equally  real  *  parts  of  the  same  go- 
vernment, to  be  seen  in  the  propagation  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
gospel,  and  in  the  government  and  protection  of  the  church 
universal,  and  of  particular  assemblies  and  individuals.  He  is 
said  to  hold,  as  it  were,  the  key  of  David,  or  ^*  the  heavenly 

(i)  Matt.  XXV.  34.  31. 


the  other,  is  as  if  a  householder,  &c."  Perhaps  also  the  same  meaning 
ought  to  be  assigned  to  that  declaration  of  Christ,  in  which  he  com- 
mands this  inducement  to  be  left  (Luke,  x.  11.)  with  those  Israelites, 
who  should  despise  (v.  10.)  the  messenger  (v.  9.)  of  the  approaching 
kingdom  of  God :  "  be  ye  sure,  that  that  divine  kingdom  has  come  nigh, 
which  not  only  decrees  to  the  obedient  that  happiness  to  which  we 
wished  to  invite  you,  (v.  9)  but  also  appoints  punishments  the  most 
grievous,  not  only  at  the  period  of  the  general  judgment  {v.  13  ss.),  but 
even  long  before,  in  the  overthrow  of  your  state  (Matt,  xxiii.  37  s-  x.23» 
comp.  with  §.m.)." 

*  It  is  singular  that  Lange  (zur  Beford-  des  niizl.  Gebr.  des  W.  A. 
Tellerischen  Worterb.  des  N.  T.,  P.  iv.  p.  85  s.)  did  not  perceive,  that, 
in  this  place,  and  in  what  follows,  (not  to  mention  my  former  observa- 
tions, $.  111.  iv.  VI.  note  76  s.  81.)  I  referred  to  the  opinion  of  Koppb, 
though  not  mentioned  by  name.  (Comp.  also  $.  ix.  at  the  beginning.) 
If  any  one,  however,  would  prefer  to  have  a  more  express  refutation  of 
this  opinion,  which  woulci  be  inconsistent  with  my  exegelical-doctrinal 
plan,  I  recommend  to  his  perusal  pp.  69  ss.  of  the  above  mentioned 
treatise. 

«*  Christ  holds  thb  key,  or  (comp.  Isai.  xxii.  22.  with  v.  21,  and 
WoLL,  in  his  edition  of  Blackw all's  Sac.  Class,  p.  16^  s.)  power  of  Da- 
vid, since  he  sits  on  the  throne  of  David,  which  form  of  expression,  when 
used  concerning  Christ,  refers,  as  we  have  seen  above  ($.  vi.),  to  his 
government  over  all  things,  and  particularly  over  the  church.  But  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  said  (Matt.  xvi.  19.)  to  be  delivered 
by  Christ  to  the  apostles,  inasmuch  as  he  wished  that  many  departments 
of  his  government  over  the  church  should  be  administered  by  them  upon 
the  earth,  and  that  they,  as  his  ambassadors  and  officers  (comp.  Isai. 
''  XXII.  22),  should  fulfil,  in  many  respects,  the  office  of  the  Lord  of  the 
church.  They  had  it  in  their  power,  as  in  the  name,  and  by  the  au- 
thority of  Christ,  who  ratified  their  decrees  in  heaven,  to  ordain  upon 
earth  divine  laws  (comp.  Lightfoot's  Hor.  Heb.  on  Matt,  in  loc),  and 
to  utter  commands  of  divine  weight  and  value  (Acts,  xv.  28.  i.  Thess. 
IV.  2.  8.  II.  13.  John,  xx,  23.  Acts,  v.  4.  9.  i.  Cor.  v.  3—5,  Acts, 
III.  6.  v.  12ss.>. 


^04  THE  MEANING  OF 

empire,  {j  )  who,  with  his  succor,  so  fortified  the  had  of  the 
church  of  Philadelphia  against  the  wiles  of  the  Jews,  (/c) 
though  he  had  httle  strength  of  Iiis  own,  that  both  he  himself 
ndhered  steadfastly  to  the  truth,  (/)  and  he  was  also  useful  to 
many  others  who  were  desirous  of  the  truth ;  (m)  and  at 
length,  triumphing  over  his  adversaries,  {n)  and  delivered 
from  a  new  calamity  which  was  impending, (o)  he  was  crown- 
ed with  great  rewards,  (p)  In  like  manner  we  read  in  St. 
Matthew,  xvi.  19,  that  it  is  the  office  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
io  govern  the  church(q)  which  shall  be  gathered  on  the  earth  ;(r) 
for  example,  to  establish  laws  for  it,  and  either  to  grant  to  its 
members  the  pardon  of  their  sins,  or  to  inflict  punishments, 
or  to  aid  the  cause  of  the  church  by  other  miraculous  opera- 
tions. These  ^^  departments  of  the  divine  government  over 
the  church  were  certainly  fulfilled  by  the  apostles,  to  whom 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  had  been  delivered  by 
Christ,  as  those  of  the  house  of  David  were  given  to  Elia- 
kim  (s)  by  Hezekiah.*  Wherefore  St.  Paul,  also,  declared 
that  he  should  estimate  the  merits  of  the  inflated (<)  teachers,(M) 
not  by  their  boasting  words,  but  by  what  they  had  done,  since 
the  kingdom  of  God^  or  the  superintending  providence  of 
Christ,  and  his  care  for  the  welfare  of  the  church,  did  not 
consist  in  words,  but  is  distinguished  by  its  power  and  ef- 

0')  Rev.  III.  7.  (k)  V.  9.  (/)  V.  8.10. 

(m)  V.  8.  at  the  beginning,  romp,  with  i.  Cor,  xvi.  9.  and  Acts,  xviu.  8— 10. 

(«);Rev.  in.  9.  (o)  v.  10.  (p)  v.  11. 

(q)  V.  18.  (r)  V.  19.  (.s)  Isai.  xxii.  22.  note  84. 

it)  I.  Cor.  IV.  18  s.        '  (w)  V.  15.. 


8  s  CdMp.  note  84,  and  Bengel's  gnomon  on  the  words  tr«V«f ,  ^va-^c, 
Matt.  XVI.  19.  (also  BAR-HEBRiEus  in  his  Chron.  Syriac.  p.  593.  XIC'^  TDX; 
means  one,  possessed  of  supreme  poivcr). 

*  [  Or  rather  by  Manasseh,  to  whose  appointment  of  Eliakim  as  his 
minister  of  state,  after  that  king's  repentance,  and  return  from  captivity, 
the  prophecy  contained  in  Isai.  xxii.  here  quoted  by  Storr,  properly 
refers.  Eliakim  had,  indeed,  filled  the  office  of  master  of  the  house- 
hold under  Hezekiah  ;  but  the  words  of  Isaiah  relate  to  his  elevation, 
after  the  death  of  Shebna  at  Babylon,  and  the  restoration  of  Manasseh 
to  his  throne.     See  Prideaux's  Connection,  Vol.  i.  p.  152— Tr.  ] 


•'  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN."  205 

fects,  {v)  in  which,  therefore,  those  persons  ought  to  be  con- 
spicuous, if  they  wished  to  be  compared  with  Paul,  the  legate 
of  the  divine  king,  and  under  that  title  holding  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  (w)     This  same  providence  of  Christ,  by 
which  he  gathers  together,  and  governs  the  church,  seems  also 
to  be  meant  in  Matt.  xin.  52,  where  one  who  is  so  taught  as 
to  be  able  to  subserve  the  Lord's  designs,  by  the  spread  of  the 
gospel,  is  said  to  be  instructed  for  the  benefit  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  (tJ)  /SatriXsj'a  twv  «/)dtvwv).     In  like  manner  su^stoj  sis 
«r»]»  BA2IAEIAN  t«  ^s5  {x)  may  be  interpreted /<,  in  reference 
to^  that  charge  of  the  divine  king,  in  virtue  of  which  he  pro- 
vides that  there  shall  be  no  deficiency  of  heralds  of  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation :    "  he  who,  having  put  his  hand  to  the 
plough,'^  looks  back,  is  an  unsuitable  person  to  be  employed 
by  the  providence  of  the  Lord  in  promulgating  the  gospel."(t/) 
In  this  same  sense,  those  who  labored  with  St.  Paul,  in  refer- 
ence to  that  same  office  of  the  divine  king,  or,  in  other  words, 
who  toiled  zealously  and  faithfully  in  tte  service  of  the  divine 
government,  by  delivering  and  inculcating  the  gospel,  he  terms, 
in  Col.  IV*   11,  (fuvspyo}  slg  «n^v  BA2IAEIAN  t«  ^sQ.     Where- 
fore also  the  kingdom  of  God  is  said  to  be  given  {z)  to  those, 
among  w^hom  is  perceived  that  function  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment which  relates  to  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  to  be  taken  azvay  from  those,  to  whom  the 
gospel  is  no  more  delivered.      But  let  us  proceed  to  those 
passages,  which  do  not  refer  to  one  department  only  of  the 
divine  government,  as,  for  instance,  that  which  provides  for, 
and  is  employed  respecting  proclamation  of  the  gospel ;  but 
which  embrace  many  species  of  actions  ;  as,  in  Matt.  xxii.  2, 

(B)  V.  20.  .  (w)  Comp.  II.  Coiin.  xu.  12.         C  • "  Luke,  ix.  62. 

(y)v.60.  (=■)  Matt.  ixi.''43. 


8  6  Comp.  note  36.  and  Diss,  de  sensu  vocis  irU^ufJLdi,  note  28. 

8  7  The  reader  need  scarcely  be  reminded,  how  frequently  figures 
drawn  from  agriculture  are  made  use  of  in  the  Scriptures, ,  in  reference 
to  the  instructions  of  a  teacher  of  the  gospel.  Comp.  Luke,  vm.  11. 
7.  Cor.  III.  6  sp.  . 


206 


THE  MEANING  Of 


7)  ffatfiksia  cwv  ypavwv  ^s  is  said  to  attend  both  to  whatever  re* 
lates  to  the  spread  of  the  gospel,  (a)  and  also  to  the  punish- 
ment of  contempt  and  neghgence.  (b)  Likewise  in  Matt. 
XIII.  24.  31.  33.  47.  Mark,  iv.  26.  30.  Luke,  xm.  18.  20, 
the  offices  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  said  to  be  these  :  to 
supply  and  make  provision  for  persons^  needed  for  spreading  the 
gospel,  and  for  producing  from  thence^  gently  by  degrees,  the 
fairest  and  most  abundant  fruits  ;  (c)  and  at  length  to  separate 
the  good  from  the  wicked,  who  have  been  so  long  tolerated, 
and  to  conduct  the  former  to  that  felicity  promised  in  the 
gospel,  but  to  inflict  most  grievous  punishment  upon  the  lat* 
ten  {d) 


§.  Vltl. 

5.  Its  periods. 

Since,  therefore,  the  administration  of  the  kingdom  of  hea* 
Ven  has  such  various  forms,  (ej  it  is  evident,  that  this  kingdom 
may  be  variously  divided.  The  first  and  that  a  most  exten- 
sive division,  is  into  two  parts,  separated  one  from  the  other 
by  the  victory  which  is  to  be  gained  over  every  enemy.  For 
Christ  either  reigns  in  the  midst  of  his  enemies,  (/)  expecting, 

(a)  V.  4.  9.  (6)  V.  7.  IS,        (c)  Mark,  iv.  26—32.    Matt.  xiii.  33.  37. 

(d)  V.  25—30.  47  ss.  ie)  ^.  vii.  (/)  Ps.  ex.  2. 


8  8  As  the  kingdom  is  conferred  upon  Christ  by  the  Father  (note  38), 
his  government,  and  the  administration  of  this  kingdom,  may  be  attri- 
bated  in  general  to  the  Father  (note  5.).  In  this  passage,  however, 
there  is  a  particular  reason  for  Christ's  ascribing  his  oWn  (comp-  Matt, 
xxiir.  34.  John,  xvii.  18.  Matt.  x.  23.  xxv.  30  ss.)  actions  to  the  Fa- 
ther. For,  as  he  wished  to  mention  his  own  and  John's  embassy  (xxii. 
3), — which  ^vere  included,  in  a  certain  sense,  within  the  idea  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ($.  iv.), — separately  from  the  teaching  of  theapostles^ 
who  were  to  invite  the  Jews,  when  all  things  were  prepared  (v.  4.),  and 
the  kingdom,  which  was  at  hand  during  the  life-time  of  Jesus,  was  ac- 
tually present,  he  could  not  conveniently,  in  this  parable,  sustain  th6 
principal  part  himself,  and  therefore  ascribed  it  to  the  Father  (v.  2.). 


207 

till  they  shall  all  be  overthrown,  (g)  or  he  sits  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  while  his  adversaries  are  lying  prostrate,  {h) 
Though,  during  the  first  of  these  two  periods,  the  sway  of 
Christ  is  no  less  real  and  powerful,  (i)  yet  we  find  that  the 
latter  has  the  name  ^(KftXsia  applied  to  it  xur  'sio^riv  (ii.  Tim. 
IV.  1.''^  Luke,  XXI.  31.  xxii.  30.  comp.  with  Matt.  xix.  28. 
Luke,  XXII.  18.'"'  Matt.  xxvi.  29.  Mark,  xiv.  25.).  For  as 
during  that  period  which  comes  Jlrst  in  order,  God  is  said  to 
reign,  {k)  when  he  makes  such  use  (/)  of  his  power,  that  all 
perceive  that  he  reigns  f^  so  it  will  have  to  be  said  with  pe- 
culiar force  that  he  reigns,  when,  every  enemy  being  subdued^ 
his  supreme  power  is  acknowledged  even  by  those  very  per- 
sons, who  treated  with  contempt  the  idea  that  the  kingdom 
must  be  thus  far  restored  by  Christ,  (m)  But  even  in  this 
period  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  there  will  be  a  twofold  di- 
versity of  administration.  For  some  (?i)  will  perceive  the 
majesty  of  the  divine  government  from  the  severity  of  their 
punishment,  or  rather,  they  will  be  enemies  subdued,  it  is  true, 

(§■)  V.  1.  Heb.  X.  13.         (/j.)  5.  v.  (i)  Comp.  ^.  vii. 

(A-)  Rev.  XIX.  6.  (Z)  v.  2.  xviii.  8.  (m)  i.  Cor.  xv.  24.  note  58. 

i'li)  Comp.  notes  59—  66. 


8  9  As  it  is  said  that  Jesus  shall  judge  the  quick  and  dead  at  the 
time  of  his  coming  and  kingdom,  it  is  evident  that  the  commencement 
of  the  kingdom,  x.at''  i^o^iiv,  is  connected  with  the  TRSurrection  of  the 
dead,  and  is  thus  (note  54.  seq.)  referred  to  that  time,  when  every  encmjf 
sliaU  be  destroyed. 

0  6  From  this  passage  it  seems  probable  that  in  v.  16.  we  ought  to 
understand  Trxw^aS-iT  h  th  ^*7thi[&  tk  ^tS  to  mean  the  same  (comp. 
Obss.  p.  453  ss.  and  Opus.  Acad.  i.  p.  146.)  as  -a-^jj^ad-ii  (IxS-ji)  r)  ^ao-i- 
Miat.  TH  3-8«,  "until  the  kingdom  of  God  is  in  perfect  and  complete 
prosperity." 

9  1  In  like  manner  God  is  said  (Rev.  xii.  10.  xi.  17.)  /S*<rt\6t/cati  (to 
be  acknowledged  king,  to  be  perceived  to  reign;  comp.  note  70,  at  the 
end.),  since  (comp.  note  22.)  he  has  taken  to  himself  (xA/nCccyn)  his 
great  power  to  (v.  18.)  punish  his  enemies  (ch.  xvi— xx.  3).  Add  xi. 
15,  where  God  and  Christ  are  said  to  obtain  the  government  over  the 
eBTth^hecause  it  is  evident  in  the  eyes  of  all,  that  the  earth  belongs  to 
God  and  Christ.  (Comp.  Neue  Apol.  der  Offenb.  Job.  p.  330.  note  18  ; 
■%nd  ToBLER,  Gedanken  und  Antworten  aur  Ehre  J.  C.  und  seines  Reichs, 

p.  371). 


5208  THE  MKANING  OF 

but  still  rebels,  paying  the  punishment  of  their  lolly  ;  but 
others  will,  as  the  pious  people  of  God,  (o)  reap  the  blessings 
of  the  divine  government,  and  be,  in  a  far  higher  sense,  in 
the  kingdom  of  God :  (p)  even  as  now,  all  men  are  in  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  {q)  but  in  a  far  different  sense  those,  to  whom 
the  gospel  has  been  presented,  (r)  and  in  the  most  distinguish- 
ed sense  of  all,  those  who  obey  it.  [s)  That  province  (region), 
therefore,  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  which  after  ^^  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead  (/)  the  pious  people  of  God  shall  dwell,  who 
are  to  receive,  from  the  benignant  and  all-powerful  govern- 
ment of  Christ,  (u)  a  mai-vellous  and  everlasting  salvation,  (v) 
is  by  a  certain  peculiar  right  called  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or 
of  God,  in  which  no  place  is  allowed  to  the  wicked,  (w)  al- 
though they  are  under  the  authority  of  God.  Of  this  kind 
are  those  passages  generally,  in  which  are  used  the  forms  of 

(0)  Rev.  XXI.  3.  (p)  XXII.  3.  (q)  J.  vi. 

(»■)  Matt.  XXI.  43.  ^.  VII.  (i)  Col.  i.  13,  note  77. 

(0  1.  Gor.  XV.  50.    ii.  Thess.  i.  5,  comp.  with  7.    Matt.  xiii.  43.  xxv.  34, 

add  Luke,  xiv.  15.  co.Tip.  with  14.  (u)  u.  Thess.  1. 10. 

iv)  Matt.  XXV.  54,  comp.  with  4G.     Mark,   ix.   47,  comp.  with  43.  45.  and 

Matt.  xvui.  8   s.     John,  in.  3.  5.\coinp.  with  3G,  and  Titus,  in.  5.  7. 

Matt.  XIX.  23  s.;  corap.  with  16.  25.     Mark,  x.  23—25,  comp.  with  26.  17. 

Luke,  xviii.  24  s.  comp.  with  2G.  18.    i.  Thess.  ii.  12.  ,  Acts,  xiy.  22, 

comp.  with  Rom.  viii.  17,  and  Luke,  xxiv.  26. 
:w)  Luke,  XIII.  28.     Matt.  viii.  11.  12.     i.  Cor.  vi.  9  s.    Gal.  v.  21. ,  Eph. 

V.  5,  comp.  with  Rev.  xxii.  15.  / 


0  3  As  God  and  Christ  are  said  t2ua-iKiuiiv  particularly  at  the  period, 
when  all  enemies  shall  have  been  destroyed,  and  (note  89.)  the  dead 
shall  have  been  raised;  so  also  that  province  (note  76.),  to  which  the 
most  glorious  fruits  shall  redound  from  this  perfect  splendor  .and  mag^ni- 
ficence  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  takes  by  a  peculiar  right  the  appella- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  since,  before  that  time,  in  those  re- 
gions to  which  the  spirits  of  departed  believers  are  conducted,  the  ma- 
jesty of  the  divine  government  is  certainly  everywhere  acknowledged, 
and  the  grandeur  of  its  kingly  offices  much  more  clearly  perceived  than 
in  the  present  life  (ii.  Cor.  v.  6—8.  Phil.  i.  23.)  ;  there  was  surely  no 
reason  why  St.  Paul  should  not  give  to  these  seats  of  the  blessed,  also, 
the  name  of  heavenly  kingdom,  in  ii.  Tim.  iv.  18.  Though  it  cannot  be 
denied,  that  even  this  passage  may  be  understood  to  refer  to  that  fu- 
ture happiness  (comp.  v.  6—8),  upon  which  the  blessed  shall  entev 
after  their  resurrection,  and  the  coming  of  the  Lord.    ^ 


*'  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN."'  i409 

"expression  sl<fs\A6Tv  slg  rriv  /3atf»Xs»av  tww  i«^avwv  (Matt.  vii.  21."^* 
V.  20."  XVIII.  3.*^  II.  Pet.  I.  11.),  Ssxs(f^M  «riiv  ^atfiXs/av  ci?' 
^SH,  («)  viisriioL  ktv  7)  (3a(fiks'M  tH  ^£«,  (y)  all  which  are  used 
promiscuously  by  St  Mark,  x.  15. 14.  and  St.  Luke,  xviii.  17. 
16*  More  frequently  instead  of  ^ifatfdcw  ^  (2)  is  substituted 
xXrj^ovofxgjv  T11V  ^arfiXslav  t«  &g«,  (a)  /o  occupy  those  blissful 
seats,  (b)  so  that  each  individual  may  have  his  own  share  in 
the  possession. (c)  Hence  the  term  xXy]^ovofAo»  rrts  /3atfiXs<a?,(J) 
or  uioi  rrjg  /SatfjXs/af,  (e)  is  applied  to  those,  to  whom  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  belongs,  or  who  shall  enter  into  the  region  of 

(x)  Mark,  x.  15.    Luke,  xvni.  it.  (y)  vi.  20.  Malt.  v.  3. 10.  xix.  14. 

(z)  Corap.  I.  Mace.  11.  51.       (a)  Matt.  xxv.  34.    i.  Cor.  vi.9  s.    Gal.  v.  21. 
.  (b)  Comp.  Gen.  xv.  7  s.  xxviii.  4,  &c.         (c)  Eph.  v.  5. 
(tO  Jam.  Ui5.  (e)  Matt.  sut.  38. 


»3  What  follows  in  v.  22.  23,  shews  with  sufl&cient  clearness,  that 
this  passage  does  not  refer  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  is  gathered  to- 
gether on  the  earth  from  the  period  of  our  Lord's  ascension  into  hea- 
ven, and  Vfhose  privileges  were  eagerly  desired  by  many  during  the  life- 
time of  Jesus  (note  36).  But  in  Matt.  xxi.  31,  xxiii.  13,  it  admits  of  a 
doubt,  whether  ff  ^*<rtxiia  rov  3-ieu  is  to  be  understood  in  this  sense 
(comp.  Luke,  xi.  52.),  or  as  referring  to  the  seats  of  the  blessed. 
.  9  4  If  this  place  be  compared  with  ».  3 — 12,  vi.  19  ss.,  it  will  readily 
be  s^dmitled,  that  both  here,  and  vi.  33.  Luke,  xii.  31,  the  discourse  is 
concerning  the  dwelling-place  and  region  of  the  blessed.  Nor  is  there  any 
reason,  why  a  different  sense  should  be  given  to  the  expression  in  the 
preceding  verse  (Matt.  v.  19J  :  "Whoever  shall  wantonly,  and  without 
hesitation,.violate  one  precept  however  small,  and  shall  teach  others  to 
do  the  same  thing,  and  much  more,  therefore,  he  who,  like  the  teachers 
of  the  law  and  the  Pharisees  (1?  20),  shall  neglect  so  many  and  great 
precepts,  and  shall  be  a  leader  and  promoter  of  negligence  in  others  (v. 
21  ss.  xxiu.  16  ss.),  he,  though  highly  esteemed  on  earth  (Luke,  xvi.  15), 
shall  in  the  regions  of  the  blessed  be  reckoned  of  the  least  account  (M«/- 
X'^of  xA»3"»»"8T*i)  by  God  and  his  people,  and  be  cast  out  from  this  pure 
abode  (Luke,  xiii.  v.  25.  27.  28.)  as  ^iikuyfAa.  (Luke,  xvi.  15,  like  iha.- 
X's-oe,  oviffxttroi,  xin.  30.  at  the  end.)." 

9  6  Very  similar  are  those  forms  of  expression,  by  which  any  one  is 
said  to  he  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  v.  4. 1.  Luke,  xiii.  28  s.  Matt.  viir. 
11. 

•  6  This  answers  to  Luke,  xii.  22.   tui'6Knr%i  5  a-^t^j  tmdi  AO*rNAl 

27 


^210  THK  MEANING  OF 

the  blessed,^"^  or  to  whom  indeed  the  right  of  citizenship  ^  in 
that  most  bhssfful  (/)  country  principally  belonged,  (g)  Per- 
haps also  Heb.  xfi.  28,  is  a  passage  of  the  same  description. 
For  as  mention  is  made  immediately  before  {h)  of  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth,^  it  is  certainly  not  improbable,  that 

(/)  VIII.  11.        (§•)  V.  12.  comp.  with  Acts,  iii.  25.    Rom.  ix.  4.         (h)  v.  27. 


fl 7  Just  as  in  Luke,  xx.  36.  si  T«f  amTufftees  TWj^dirTJf  (y.  35)  are 
called  utci  tmc  aictrdffms. 

0  •  As  ^  ^xa-txtict  refers  peculiarly  to  that  administration  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  which  shall  take  place  in  the  region  of  the  blessed  after 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  (Matt.  xxvi.  29.  §.  viii.  at  the  beginning.)  ; 
the  right  of  citizenship,  also,  in  the  king-dom  of  heaven,  thus  understood, 
maybe  called  (note  36.)  ^  0a.(rihiiA. 

9  fl  Christ,  who  formerly,  when  the  law  was  given  on  Mount  Sinai 
(».  18  ss.),  shook  the  earth,  which  could  equally  well  be  declared  of 
him,  in  reference  to  his  divine  nature,  as  that  he  created  all  things  (i.  2. 
10.),  now,  when  God  spoke  by  him,  is  said  to  have  promised  (xii.  26.). 
that  he  will  once  more  shake  the  heaven  and  earth  (comp.  Rev.  xx.  11. 
XXI.  1.  u.  Pet.  ni.  10--12.),  from  which  it  is  evident  (Heb.  xii.  27.),  that 
the  things  which  are  shaken  (heaven  and  earth,  Heb.  xii.  26.)  are  re- 
moved from  their  place,  as  being  made  with  this  design,  that  they  might 
await  (comp.  Rom.  viii.  19  ss.  n.  Pet.  in.  7.  and  /«««<»,  Acts,  xx.  6.  23.) 
an  immovable  condition  (comp.  the  neuters,  Heb.  vx.  9.),  i.  c.  that  that 
signal  change  might  remain,  whereby  the  appearance  of  heaven  and 
earth  shall  become  permanent.  The  words  »t/  etjretf,  used  by  Christ, 
not  only  shew,  that  the  heaven  and  the  earth  will  be  shaken,  but  also 
imply  at  the  same  time,  that  no  other  shaking  shall  follow ;  and  that 
therefore,  subsequently  to  that  event,  to  which  the  display  at  Sinai  can- 
not be  at  all  compared,  the  state  of  earth  and  heaven  will  be  such,  that 
things  will  cease  to  be  movable  and  fragile.  But  it  is  probable  that  the 
sentence  quoted  by  the  Apostle  (xii.  26.),  is  not  from  Haggai,  but  that 
it  was  uttered  by  Christ,  when  he  was  discoursing  perhaps  at  some  time 
or  other  (comp.  Acts,  i.  3.)  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  was 
comparing  this  new  economy  with  the  old  Mosaic  dispensation  (comp. 
John,  VI.  32.) ;  and  that  it  was  never  recorded  in  the  gospel  histories  (Acts, 
XX.  35.).  For,  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact,  that  jhe  words  of  Haggai  are 
not  sufficiently  like  these,  it  appears  to  me  to  be  very  n^uch  against  the 
commonly  received  opinion,  that  Jesus  is  said  to  have  promised  now, 
when  God  commands  by  him  (Heb.  xii.  25.  comp.  with  x.  28  s.  i.  1  s. 
II.  1 — 3.),  Tov  drr  tf'gatvaiv  (comp.  John,  iii.  31.  i.  Cor.  xv.  47.),  not  by 
Moses,  Toir  tVi  TMC  ytie  (comp.  Heb.  in.  3 — 6  ),  that  he  will  once  more 
shake  not  only  the  earth,  as  was  done  at  the  time  when  he  IttI  t«?  yUc 


••  THE  KINGDOM  OP  HEAVEN."  211 

the  unchangeable  kingdom  which  beUevers  shall  obtain/^  con- 
sists in  those  happy  seats  in  which  the  faithful  shall  dwell,  (*) 
after  thev  have  been  restored  to  life,  (j ) 


§.  IX. 

Although,  therefore,  a  great  number  of  passages  refers  to 
that  future  and  most  conspicuous  appearance  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  ;  (k)  yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  also  not 
a  few,  which,  if  we  ought  to  choose  the  most  obvious  inter- 
pretation,"* lead  us  to  a  mucK  broader  signification  of  the  ex- 
pression. (/)  And  that  same  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
which  includes  the  whole  government  of  Christ  from  his  as- 
cension into  heaven,  seems  to  have  been  in  the  mind  of  the 
apostles  in  those  places  also,  which, — because  (?n)  that  empire 
is  now  established,  whose  extent  and  dignity  will  bring  to 
pass,  in  its  own  time,  all  that  remains  to  be  done,  and  could 
perform  it  forthwith,  did  not  the  long-suffering  (n)  of  the 
judge  prevent  it, — shew  that  an  end  is  at  hand  (Heb.  ix.  2G}'" 

(t)  II.  Pet.  HI.  13.  (j  )  Rev.  xx.  12.  xai.  1.  (&)  }.  vni. 

(.1)  }.  III.  vii.  (m)  Comp.  note  30. 

(n)  n.  Pet.  iii.  9. 15.    Heb.  x.  13. 


iX^hlxtttivi,  or  divinely  instructed  (Acts,  x.  22.)  the  people,  but  also  the 
heaven. 

1  •  0  Utt^ttxttfiCdun  also  in  Jer.  xlix.  1.  2.  means  the  sameas  itx^^o- 
yofxtn  'y  but  the  present  participle  has  the  sense  of  the  future  (comp.  Acts, 
XV.  27.),  as,  in  Heb.  xii.  27,  Ti  o-ethtvofAtrx  signifies  things  that  are  to  be 
shaken,  movable.    Comp-  Obss.  gramm.  p.  134  s. 

1  0 1  Comp.  DoEDERLEiw,  Instit.  Theol.  Christ,  p.  748  s.  [  p.  291.  Vol. 
n.  Ed.  Junge.  Nor.  et  Alt.  1797.— Tr.  ] 

^02  At  the  end  of  the  world  (comp.  also  Heb.  i.  2.  1.  Pet.  i.  20.)  it 
was  that  Jesus  was  born,  because,  at  his  birth,  the  commencement  was 
at  hand  of  a  kingdom  ($.  iv.),  which  shall  make  all  things  new  (Rev. 
XXI.  5.),  and  which  would  immediately  have  proceeded  to  make  hea- 
ven and  earth  new  and  permanent  (Heb.  xii.  26  s.),  and  to  display  its 
glorious  {v.  28.  $.  viii.)  and  grand  appearance,  but  for  that  divine  good- 
ness which  desires  first  to  make  men  new  creatures  (ii.  Cor.  v.  17.),  and 
that  completely,  too,  that  they  may  be  able  to  rejoice  in  this  wonderful 
change  of  things  (n.  Pet.  iii,  ^15.). 


M^^         THE  MEANING  OP    "  THE  KINGDOM  OP  HEAVEN.'' 

1.  Cor.  X.  11.  I.  Pet.  IV.  7.  i.  John,  ii.  18.^°^ ) ;  and  exhort 
to  /xeTavoja  and  the  cultivation  of  hohness  (o)  with  this  motive, 
that  that  avvi^  now  reigns,  by  whom  God  will  judge  men,  (/)) 
and  is  ready  and  prepared  to  malie  the  exhibition  of  his  ma- 
jesty {q)  whenever  it  pleases  him.^"^ 

(o)  Acts,  XVII.  31.    1.  Pet.  iv.  7,     Jam.  v.  8  s.    Heb.  x.  25.  35-- 37.  comp. 
Luke,  XXI.  34  ss. 
f      (^  Acts,  XVII.  31.  (5)  Jam.  v.  0. 8.    i.  Pet.  iv.  5. 


1  0  3  From  the  time  that  the  king,  descended  from  the  family  of  Da- 
vid (Ps.  II.  6.),  reigns,  that  last  time  is  present  (comp.  note  30. 102.) 
to  which  the  ancient  prophets  looked.  Iii  it,  also,  are  contained  ivti- 
XH^-Tt  (comp.  Ps.  u,  2.),  who,  before  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  had  no 
existence.    Comp.  ii.  Tim.  in.  1.    ii.  Pet.  m.  3.    Jud.  ».  18. 

10  4  Although  the  coming  of  the  Judge  did  not  overtake  the  first 
readers  of  the  N.  T.  while  they  were  yet  alive,  yet  of  the  whole  num- 
ber (Mark,  xiii.  37.  Luke,  xu.  41.  comp.  with  45.)  of  those  to  whom 
the  instructions  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  are  directed  (comp.  Diss,  de 
sensu  historico,  note  18,  183,),  there  will  be  certainly  not  a  few,  whom 
that  decisive  period  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  though  it  be  long  delay- 
ed (t>  45.  Matt.  XXIV.  48.  xxv.  5.  19.),  shall  at  length  come  upon  un- 
awares, while  they  are  alive.  But  as  this  time  was  to  be  unknown 
(Luke,  XII.  39's.  46.  Mark,  xiu,  35.  Matt.  xxiv.  36.— xxv.  13.  i-  Thess.  v. 
2  ss.) ;  teachers  merely  human  could  not  exhort  to  watchfulness  those  during 
whose,  life-time  the  destined  period  for  retribution  wiU  he  just  at  hand,  unless 
they  gave  this  advice  to  men  of  all  periods  of  the  world.  But  further : 
men  of  former  ages,  who  were  negligent  of  this  precept,  certainly  wUl  be 
taken  unprepared  by  that  signal  period  of  retribution  ;  since  by  the  ad- 
vantage of  death  they  neither  become  more  prepared,  nor  do  they  es- 
cape out  of  the  power  of  the  judge,  so  that  he  cannot  subsequently  ap- 
point a  day  for  them  (n.  Cor.  v.  10.). 


DISSERTATION 


PARABIiES  OF  CHRIST. 


BY 

GOTTLOB  CHRISTIAN  STORR. 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THB  LATIK, 

BY  WILLIAM  R.  WHITTINGHAM,  A.  M. 

CHAPLAIN  ASD  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  THE  NEW-YORK  PROTESTANT 
EPISCOPAL  PUBLIC  SCHOOL. 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST. 


§.I. 


The  word  's'a^a§oX>3  is  derived  from  the  verb  flra^a§aXXs<v,(a) 
which  signifies  to  collate,  compare,  assimilate,  Quinctilian 
interprets  it  *  by  the  words  simihtudo,  collatio  ;  Seneca  {h) 
uses  imago.  It  is,  therefore,  a  comparison  (collatio),  or  to 
nse  the  definition  of  Cicero,  (c)  "  a  form  of  speech,  in  which 
we  compare  one  thing  with  some  other  on  account  of  a 
resemblance  between  the  two,"  which  is  designated  by  the 
Greek  word  parable  (parabola,  cra^a^oX^.).  In  this  sense  ^ 
Christ  is  said(rf)  to  have  spoken  in  parables  (sv  ^ra^a^oXai^)  when 

(a)'  Mar.  iv.  30.  (6)  Ep.  lix.  («)  Lib.  i.  de  Inv.  c.  30. 

id)  Mar.  iii.  23. 


1  De  Institut.  Orat.  L.  V.  c.  xi.  VIII.  iii.  p.  298.  302.  470.  [  p.  256. 
260.  399.  ed.  Oxon.  1693.  ] 

«  The  word  has  the  same  signification  in  Lu.  xii-  41.  xv.  3.  xxi.  29. 
Mat.  xxiv.  32.  Mar.  xiii.  28.  [  in  all  which  passages  the  comparison  is 
indicated  by  the  subsequent  use  of  hvtm.  ]  There  is  nothing  strange  in 
the  application  of  the  name  TragtuQoKn  to  an  allegory,  even  though  me- 
taphorical as  in  Lu-  V.  36. ;  (that  also  being  a  form  of  speech  in  which  one 
thing  is  compared,  although  less  evidently,  with  some  other,)  or  even  to 
a  thing  which  is  the  image,  ovtype,  of  some  other,  as  in  Heb.  ix.  9. 


216 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 


he  proved,  by  various  similitudes,  (e)  that  he  cast  out  demons, 
not  by  the  aid  of  Satan,  but  by  a  higher  power. 


§.  11. 

Parables  are  carefully  distinguished  by  Aristotle  (/)  from 
that  species  of  composition  which  is  known  in  Greek  by  the 
names  of  Xoyoj  and  amg,  and  in  Latin  by  that  of  fabula,^  prin- 
cipally, as  appears  from  the  examples  which  he  adduces,^  and 
as  has  been  more  fully  shown  by  Lessing,^  on  the  ground 
that  in  a  parable  the  object  or  event  which  is  given  as  the 
image  of  some  other,  is  merely  contemplated  in  the  mind  as 
possible,  while  in  a  fable  an  event  is  related,  as  having  ac- 
tually taken  place  at  some  definite  time.  So  the  well  known 
fable  of  MENENms  Agrippa,  relating  to  the  dissension  be- 
tween the  members  of  the  body  and  the  belly,  narrates  ihot 
the  other  members  took  umbrage  at  the  belly,  and  conspired 
against  it  f  and  the  32d  of  Lokman's  Fables,  which  greatly 
resembles  it,  recounts,  that  when  the  feet  boasted  that  they 
supported  the  body,  the  belly  made  answer  :  *  what  would  they 
be  able  to  do,  if  it  should  prepare  no  food  to  afford  them 
strength  ? '  On  the  other  hand  when  Paul,  in  i.  Cor.  xii.  12 
— 27,  makes  use  of  a  parable  derived  from  the  same  objects, 
he  does  not  relate  (g)  that  the  foot  denied  that  it  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  body,  because  it  was  not  the  hand,  or  that  the  eye 
reproached  the  hand  with  being  useless  to  it ;  but  says  "  if  the 
foot  should  deny  that  it  was  a  member  of  the  body,  because  it 
was  not  the  hand,  would  it  therefore  not  belong  to  the  body  ? 
or,  if  the  eye  should  desire  to  reproach  the  hand  with  its  hav- 

(e>  Mar.  iii.  24—27.  (/)  Rhet.  L.  ii.  20.  (g)  v.  15  s.  21. 


3  Comp.  Q,uiNTiLiAN.  L.  V.  c.  xi.  p.  301  s.  [  259.  s.  ed.  Ox.  ]• 
*  See  below,  note  9,  and  $.  v. 

5  In  his  First  Dissertation  appended  to  his  Fables  iu  the  German 
language ;  p.  160  ss. 

fi  See  Livii  Hist.  Lib.  ii.  c.  xxxii. 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  217 

ing  no  need  of  it,  it  could  have  no  right  to  do  so.  The  case 
is  just  the  same  with  those  who  envy  the  gifts  of  others,  or 
despise  their  inferiors." 

The  illustration  given  by  our  Saviour  in  Lq.  xiii.  19,  has 
the  form  of  a  fable.  In  Mar.  iv.  30  s.  the  same  illustration  is 
given  as  a  parable,  for  it  does  not  assume  as  a  fact  that  any 
certain  man  committed  to  the  ground  in  his  garden  any  given 
grain  of  mustard  seed,  but  merely  sets  forth  what  was  cus- 
tomary and  might  happen  at  any  time  or  in  any  place.'^ 


§.  III. 

The  object  with  which,  in  a  parable,  some  other  object  is 
compared  on  account  of  its  resemblance,  must  be  possible, 
either  under  the  actually  existing  state  of  things,  or  else  on 
some  hypothetical  and  feigned  condition.  To  the  first  class 
belong  not  only  those  objects  or  events,  the  possibility  of 
which  is  so  certain,  that  they  customarily  occur,^  but  also 
such,  as  although  they  do  not  customarily  occur,^  yet  certainly 


7  In  like  manner  in  Lu.  xviii.  2  ss.  Christ  himself  substitutes  a  form 
of  composition  (xsyov)  which  recounts  the  subject  as  a  fact,  for  the  para- 
ble in  Lu.  xi.  6  ss.  which  merely  regards  it  as  posiible,  and  perhaps  about 
to  happen. 

%  It  is  altogether  possible  that  the  facts,  the  reality  of  which  is  as- 
sumed in  a  parable,  may  have  actiutlly  occurred  a  thousand  times.  But 
the  parable  does  not  narrate  any  one  of  these  occurrences,  but  merely 
affirms  the  possibUUy  of  the  fact,  inferred  from  them,  and  describes 
what  may  now  and  hereafter  happen. 

9  EusTATHius  (in  11.  B.  p.  176.  ed.  Rom.)  says  that  a  parable  is  a 
species  of  composition  in  which  the  truth  intended  to  be  conveyed  is 
taught  and  confirmed  (p.  253,)  by  such  things  as  are  wont  to  happen  aU 
ways,  or  every  day.  And  certainly  we  find  that  the  resemblance  which, 
as  Aristotle  has  taught  (loc.  citat.)  it  is  necessary  to  observe  in  the 
composition  of  parables,  is  most  generally  taken  (as  Eustathius  has 
remarked,  II.  B.  n.  p.  176. 1065,)  as  well  from  the  natural  history  ei- 
ther of  animals,  both  rational  and  irrational,  (h)  or  of  inanimate  things,(i) 

(h)  Jer.  xiii.  23.    M»t.  xxiii.  37.  <i)  Lu.  xxi.  2$  ss. 

28 


^18  THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST. 

may  exist.  The  second  class  consists  of  such  as  are  possible 
on  the  supposition  of  some  change  in  the  nature  or  state  of 
things,  as,  for  instance,  that  irrrational  things  might  have  the 
power  of  speech,  which  is  assumed  in  the  parable  of  St. 
Paul,  (/)in  which  he  compares  Christians  with  the  several 
members  of  the  human  body. 

In  both  these  classes  of  parables^  the  object  or  event, 
whether  customary,  or  merely  possible,  or  only  hypothetical, 
is  only  considered  as  possible — a  thing  that  might  have  exist- 
ed or  happened.  But  if  we  change  the  statement,  and  sup- 
pose  the  object  or  event  to  have  actually  existed  or  happen- 
ed,^^  they  become /a6/e5,  ih^  first  class  of  parables  constituting 

(i)  §.  II. 


as  from  common  life  and  circumstances  of  daily  occurrence  among 
men.  (fc)  Of  this  sort  is  the  parable  of  Sextius,  in  Seneca,  vbi  supra. 
But  the  example  given  by  Aristotle  furnishes  proof  that  the  use  of  the 
term  parable  is  not  confined  to  this  species  of  comparison.  He  gives 
the  following  as  a  specimen  of  a  parable.  '*  A  magistrate  ought  not  to 
be  chosen  by  lot.  For  this  would  be  like  appointing  as  wrestlers,  or  as 
pilots  of  vessels,  not  such  men  as  were  most  skilful,  but  such  as  should 
happen  to  obtain  the  office  by  lot."  The  absurdity  of  electing  magistrates 
by  lot  is  illustrated  in  this  parable  not  by  events  which  customarily  take 
place,  but  by  such  as  are  merely  possible.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  em- 
brace the  more  general  idea  of  a  parable  ;  which  is  given  even  by  Eds- 
TATHios  himself,  when  he  says  (Odyss.  A.  p.  1406.)  that  a  parable  is  a 
comparison  (vA^nQta-n  ofxaia/uictriKHv)  instituted  for  the  illustration  of 
any  subject  under  consideration. 

1  0  Even  such  events  as  frequently  occur,  may  be  feigned  by  the  au- 
thor of  a  fable.  For  example,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  Christ 
had  in  view  (Mat.  xiii.  3  ss.)  any  particular  man,  to  whom  he  recollect- 
ed such  circumstances  to  have  happened  as  he  was  sowing  grain.  He 
may  have  merely  assigned  occurrences  which  he  knew  might  at  any 
time  take  place  to  a  supposed  individual  (too  iuvt)  called  up  for  that 
purpose  in  his  imagination.  This  is,  in  fact,  the  very  point  of  distinc- 
tion between  a  historical  example  {-ret^et^uyfAd.)  properly  so  called,  and 
a  parable  or  fable,  as  Aristotle  has  observed,  (ubi  supra,  corap.  Rhet. 
ad  Alex.  c.  ix.).  He  that  would  produce  an  example  must  derive  such 
as  will  suit  his  purpose  from  the  records  of  transacticns  that  have  actually 

ik)  u.  Ki.  xxi.  13.     Lu,  xi.  5  ss.  xv.  S—10,  xii.  S6  ss.  xiv.  28  ss.    Mar. 
Jii.  24  ss. 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  219 

that  species  of  fables  which  is  denominated  rational,  and  the 
other  that  called  moral}'' 


taken  place,  while  those  who  make  use  of  parables  or  fables  for  the  illus- 
tration of  their  themes,  may  draw  upon  their  own  i7ivention*  Even  if  it 
should  happen  that  a  fable  writer  should  meet  with  a  true  history  suit- 
ed to  his  purpose,  which  may  save  him  the  trouble  of  invention  ;  still, 
his  attention  must  be  diverted  from  the  truth  of  the  fact,  which  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  his  design  and  of  which  he  can  make  no  use.  There 
is,  therefore,  no  ground  for  alarm  lest  the  licence  of  inventing  fables 
should  either  lessen  the  credit  of  true  histoiy,  or  afford  facility  for 
spreading  falsehood.  There  cannot  be  even  the  appearance  of  false- 
hood in  a  form  of  speech  already  in  such  general  use,  that,  notwithstand- 
ing its  historical  form  of  composition,  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  not  to 
recognize  it  as  a  fiction.  The  Jews,  in  particular,  had  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
been  long  accustomed  to  the  ancient  mode  of  teaching  by  means  of 
fables,  (Judg  ix,  7 — 15.  ii.  Sam.  xii.  1 — 4.  ii.  Ki.  xiv.  9.  ii.  Chr. 
XXV.  18.  Isa.  V  1—6.  Ezek.  xvii.  3—10.  xix.  1—9.)  so  that  none  of 
them  could  have  been  so  stupid,  as  not  to  understand  that  the  histories 
related  were /etg-ucrf,  not  true,  (comp.  Mat.  xiii.  10).  Indeed  it  is  not 
the  design  of  a  fable  to  put  on  the  semblance  of  a  true  history,  but  to 
be  understood  as  a  fiction,  that  the  reader,  who  would  not  perceive  its 
meaning,  if  he  confined  his  attention  to  the  narration  ($.  xi),  maybe 
led  to  inquire  concerning  the  object  for  which  it  was  invented.  The 
use  of  fables,  moreover,  is  allowed  to  teachers  only,  never  to  historical 
writers.  We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  whatever  credible  historians, 
— the  evangelists,  for  instance — relate,  is  to  be  received  as  mattcT  offatt, 
and  not  sls  fable.  In  the  case  of  the  evangelists,  even  in  their  accounts 
of  the  discourses  of  Christ,  it  is  generally  easy  to  distinguish  between 
the  true  and  the  fictitious  histories,  although  the  latter  are  not  always 
pointed  out  as  parables;  e.  g.  Lu.  vii.  41  s.  xiv.  16  ss.  xvi.  1  ss.  Mat. 
xviii.  23  ss.  xx.  1  ss.  xxv.  1  ss.  Even  when  a  teacher  has  been  in  the 
habit  of  using  fables  for  the  purpose  of  instruction,  we  may  nevertheless 
be  sure  that  examples  adduced  by  him  are  historically  true  (e.  g.  Lu.  iv. 
25  ss.  Mat.  xii.  3  s.  41  s.  xxiii.  35,)  whenever  either  the  same  history 
has  been  handed  down  by  historical  writers,  and  those  such  as  are 
worthy  of  credit,  or  the  manner  of  arguing  used  by  the  teacher,  and  all 
the  context,  show  that  he  assumes  the  truth  of  the  fact  which  he  relates. 
When  we  are  unable  by  either  of  these  criteria  to  discover  whether  & 
narrative  used  by  Christ  is  a  historical  example  or  n  fable  (Lu.  xvi.  1^ 
ss.  X.  30  ss.)  the  probability  is,  that  it  is  to  be  reckoned  among  the  lat- 
ter, as  they  were  so  frequently  employed  by  him. 

» 1  This  distinction  is  derived  from  the  progymnasmata  of  Aphthq- 


*  [  Fabulae  exemplorum   vicarii  et  supplementa  olim  extiterunt 
Bacon  de  Augm.  Scient.  Works.  IV.  214.  1  , 


^2'20  THE  PARABLES  OP  GHRISt. 

The  rational  fable "  relates  an  event  absolutely  possible, 
i,  e  which  either  customarily  occurs,  (m)  or  at  least  may  do 
so.  (n)  The  moral  fable  recounts  events  possible  only  on  the 
supposition,  either,  that  the  objects  of  which  they  are  related, 
did  exist,  which  species  is  called  by  Lessing  the  mythical 
fable,  or,  that  things  really  existing,  such  as  brutes  or  inani- 
mate substances,  were  in  possession  of  certain  gifts,  such  as 
reason  and  speech,  which  they  do  not  enjoy .'^  Of  this  latter 
sort  is  the  fable  told  by  Jotham,  Judg.  ix.  8 — 15, 


§.  IV. 

The  evangelists',  contrary  to  the  Greek  usage,  ^^  (o)  have 

(m)  Mat.  xiii.  3—8.  31-33.  47  s.  xxi.  28—30,  &c. 

(n)  Lu.  xil.  20.  xiv.  21—23.     Ma(t.  xxii.  2  ss.  (o)  }.  u. 


A'lusj  he  makes  three  classes  of  fables,  to  xoyntov,  to  )iStKov,  and  t» 
fxiKTof,  which  names. are  retained  by  Wolf  (Philos.  Pract.  Univ.  P.  ii. 
$.  303.)  and  Lessing.  (Diss.  iii.  p  191  ss.)  although  they  have  deter- 
mined the  character  of  each  class  with  greater  accuracy.  The  cl?is3 
called  mixed,  comprises  fables  which  narrate  things  absolutely  possible  as 
facts,  as  well  as  those  which  relate  things  possible  merely  under  a  hypo- 
thetical condition,  as  such.  Of  this  class  there  is  no  instance  in  the  New 
Testament. — Further  information  on  this  subject  may  be  found  in  Les- 
sing's  work,  ubi  supra,  p.  204  s. 

12  Fables  of  this  kind  occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  ii.  Sam.  xii. 
1  as.    Isa.  V.  1  ss. 

1  3  This  hypothetical  condition  is  expressly  recognized  by  Menenius, 
whose  fable,  as  given  by  Livt,  begins  thus :  *'  At  a  time  when  the  human 
members  were  not,  as  now,  inseparably  united,  but  had  each  its  private 
interest,  each  its  power  of  speech,  the  other  members  having  taken 
nmbrage,"  &c. 

1  5  The  words  fabula,  fabdla,  affabulatio,  (wrtjxvBtov,  §.  xiii.)  have 
already  been  applied  to  the  parables  of  Christ  by  Grotius  (Comm.  in 
Matth.  xiii.  10.  44.  49.  De  Jure  Belli  ac  Pacis,  Lib.  IL  c  xx.  $.  48. 
no.  3,)  CoccEius  (Schol.  in  Matth.  xx.  p.  32,  and  Disp.  Select,  xxxv.  $.  1, 
p.  89.  0pp.  T.  IV.  and  vi.)  and  many  others.  There  is  no  reason  to 
consider  the  very  ancient,  and,  as  Luther  (0pp.  Lips.  T.  vi.  p.  380. 
Append.  T.  xxii.  p.  61  ss.)  has  well  observed,  highly  excellent  ($.  ix.  x,) 


<"  Tx;«"^'^i 


tHE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 


given  to  fables^*  of  the  first  class,  (the  only  kind  used  by 
Christ)  the  name  of  parables ^  (p)  or  comparisons,  (q)  This 
may  be  accounted  for  by  their  tendency  to  the  Hebraistic 
idioms.  The  Hebrew  word  ^&d  was  used  in  the  first  place 
to  signify  a  similitude  ^®  or  an  image,  (r)      Poems  generally 

(p)  $.  I.  (g)  Mat.  xiii.  3, 18,  24.  31,  33,  36,  53.  xxi.  33   xxii.  1.    Lu. 

xii.  16.  xviii.  1.  9.  six.  11.  (r)  Ezek.  xxiv.  3. 


method  of  teaching  by  fables,  as  trifling  or  unworthy  of  Christ,*  nor 
are  we  immediately  to  conclude  from  there  being  no  mention  of  the  use 
of  the  apologue,  or  completely  moral  fable  by  our  Lord,  that  none  of 
that  sort  were  ever  told  by  him.  Even  the  common  definition  of  a 
parable,  that  is,  a  history  bearing  the  similitude  of  trtilh,  invented  for  the 
purpose  of  conveying  through  that  medium  some  recondite  and  spiritual 
meaning  (see  Glassii  Philol.  Sac.  p.  479.  ed.  Lips.  1705,  and  Pfaffu 
Commentat.  de  recta  theol.  parabolicae  et  allegoricae  conformatione, 
p.  2.)  will  suit  many  of  the  fables  of  JEsop,  nay,  all  of  the  rational  fables, 
if  we  take  from  it  the  restrictive  epithet  spirit\ial,wh\ch  seems  to  signify 
not  a  moral  of  any  kind  but  more  definitely  a  divinely  revealed  doctrine. 
This,  however,  is  only  what  is  called  the  specific  difference  of  the  para- 
bles  of  Christ,  which  certainly  does  not  deprive  them  of  the  gejseric 
character  of  fables-  Nevertheless,  although  in  a  treatise  like  the  present, 
we  cannot  dispense  with  the  name  oi  fable,  for  the  purpose  of  distin- 
guishing the  different  forms  of  the  parables  of  Christ  (§  i — iv.)  and  of 
ascertaining  with  the  greater  accuracy  the  nature  of  such  of  them  as  be- 
long to  the  class  of  fables.  (§.  v.  ss.) ;  yet,  as  Wolf  has  remarked  (ubi 
supra,  §.  302,)  it  is  better  to  refrain  from  the  use  of  that  word  in  the 
vernacular  language,  and  to  retain  the  Hebrew-Greek  term  parable, 
lest  the  Latin  word  fable  should  be  misunderstood  by  ulUearncd  per- 
sons, and  they  be  induced  to  confound  it  with  the  idea  of  old  wives^ 
fables. 

»  *  EusTATHius  indeed  (p.  176,  below)  comprises  even  that  species 
of  the  Aoyoc  in  which  a  historic  style  is  used,  ($.  ii.)  under  the  name  of 
tTtf^aCo^M  or  parable.  But  it  is  very  possible  that  the  Archbishop  of 
Thessalonica  may  have  been  led  to  this  by  some  recollection  of  the 
more  extended  use  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament. 

1  •  The  word  tjj^jj,  like  the  Arabic  J£j^ ,  is  plainly  used  for  compari- 


*  C  See  some  valuable  remarks  on  this  feature  of  the  teaching  of  our 
Saviour  in  Scmner^s  Evidences,  p.  141  s.  Am.  ed. ;  and  a  full  discussion 
of  the  subject  in  Newcome's  Observations  on  our  Lord's  conduct  as  a 
divine  instructor,  Chap.  II.  Sect.  X.  pp.  141 — 158.      Tr.l  J 


^222  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

abounding  in  images,  it  was  applied  toi;hem.  (5)  Ingeniousr 
sayings  being  usually  couched  in  poetic  style,  and  replete  with 
comparisons,  next  acquired  the  name ;  (t)  hence  it  came  to  be 
applied  to  proverbs,  (?/)  which  constituted  the  most  usual  and 
favourite  class  of  ingenious  sayings,  and  at  lastto/a6/65.  (w)" 
Thus,  the  Hebraizing  writers  were  led  to  give  the  Greek  word 
rra^aCoXTj  besides  its  proper  meaning  of  similitude,  {x)  not  only 
the  other  meanings  of  the  Hebrew  word,  for  instance,  that  of 
an  ingenious  saying,  {y)  and  that  of  a  proverb,  (z)  but  also  the 
signification  of  «  fable,  {a^^  And  indeed  both  fables  (6)  and 
similitudes  (c)  might  with  the  more  propriety  be  included  un- 
der the  common  name  -Tra^a^oX-y),  [d)  as  all  the  fables  of  Christ 
are  a  kind  of  similitudes,  which  is  far  from  being  the  case  with 
any  other  fables  than  those  of  the  compound  or  mixed  class. 


§.  V. 

This  will  appear  more  evident,  upon  a  closer  investigation 
of  the  nature  of  a  fable.     In  the  first  place,  then,  it  is  well 

(8)  Isa  x\v.  4.     Ps.  xlix.  5.     Num.  xxiii.  7, 18.  xxiv.  3,  15,  20  s.,  23. 
*      (0  Prov.  i.  1.  (m)  1.  Sam.  x.  12.  xxiv.  14.  (to)  Ezek.  xvii.  2. 

(as)  5.  I.  (y)  Lu.  XiV.  7.     Mar.  vii.  17     Matt.  xv.  15. 

(2)  Lu.  iv.  23,  and  in  the  Ixx.  i.  Sam.  x.  12.  xxiv.  14. 
(o;  In  the  Ixx  Ezek.  xxii.  2.  (6)  Mar.  iv.  3  ss. 

c)  Mar.  ix.  28—32.  id)  v.  33  s. 


son  (e.  g.  Isa.  xlvi.  5.)  On  the  etymological  derivation  of  its  meanings 
ScHULTENs  (in  the  beginning  of  his  Comm.  in  Prov.)  and  Michaelis  (in 
LowTHU  Prael  iv.  de  Sac.  poesi.Hebr.  p.  64  s.)  may  be  consulted.  [  See 
also  Dathe's  examination  of  its  meanings,  in  his  edition  of  Glassii 
Philol.  Sac.  Lib.  u  Tract.  1  c.  xxi.  p.  1305  s  ] 

17  The  Arabic  Jlit-^aJ  has  the  same  meaning.  [The  Syriac  t^'A^^ 
also  is  used  for  the  Greek  Trct^itSo^n  in  an  equally  extended  application, 
(e.  g.  Mat.  xiii.  18,)  and  the  fables  of  Talmud  are  called  j^SnO  Dathe, 
ubi  supra. 

>  8  On  the  other^hand  the  word  Trufot/utei  which  properly  answers  to 
the  Htbrew  "^^yo  in  its  signification  of  a  proverb,  is  made  to  receive  the 

TT 

other  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  in  which  it  expresses  an  image,  an  al- 
legory, e.  g.  Jo.  X.  6.  See  by  all  means^VoRSTn  Philol.  Sac.  P.  1.  c.  iv. 
end,. 


THE  VAKABLES  OF  CBRlST.  223 

known  ^*  that  the  name  of  fabh  (Xoyoj)  belongs  only  to  that 
species  of  narration  of  fictitious  events^  which  inculcates  some 
moral  instruction  adapted  to  reclaim  from  sin,  and  to  recom- 
mend the  practice  of  virtue  and  prudence,  (e)  With  this  view 
it  may  either  delineate  an  image  of  human  manners,  (/)  or 
set  before  the  eyes  the  melancholy  consequences  of  sin,  (g)  or 
by  declaring  the  principles  of  the  divine  government  {h)  re- 
move the  occasions  for  rash  judgments  and  attempts,  and  the 
other  vices  which  spring  from  ignorance  of  those  principles ; 
or,  as  is  generally  the  case,  serve  for  several  of  these  moral 
uses. 

Now  a  fable  may  illustrate  such  a  moral  doctrine  either 
generally,  or  with  a  particular  reference  to  some  certain  event, 
or  to  some  impending  emergency,  which  may  have  furnished 
occasion  for  it.  There  are  therefore  two  sorts  of  fables,  the 
simple  and  the  compound. 

The  first  sort,  or  simple  fable,  is  not  to  be  reckoned  among 
metaphorical  allegories.  There  is  no  similitude  between  it 
and  the  doctrine  which  it  expresses,  inasmuch  as  the  subject 
and  predicate  of  the  latter  form  the  genus  of  which  the  sub- 
ject and  predicate  of  the  fable  are  a  species.  There  cannot 
be  said  to  be  a  similitude  between  a  genus  and  any  species  or 
individual  comprehended  in  it ;  and  therefore  a  simple  fable  is 
rather  an  example  of  moral  doctrine  than  an  allegory. 

But  a  compound  fable  may  be  considered  as  an  allegory  of 
the  thing  or  event  on  occasion  of  which  it  was  narrated:^  For 
example,  the  fable  of  the  conspiracy  of  the  human  members 
for  the  destruction  of  the  belly  (i)  is  simple,  if  intended  merely 
to  teach  the  general  truth,  that  dissensions  are  injurious  to 
both  the  contending  parties.     For  the  hand,  and  mouth,  and 

ie)  Mat  xviii.  S5.     Lu.  k.  37.  xii.  21.  xvi.  8  ss.  19  ss.  xviii.  1.  9.  14.  \v.  2Q. 
comp.  2.    Mat.  xx.  15  s.  xiii.  44 — 4fi.  xxv.  1  ss.  corap.  13.  and  xxiv.  47  ss. 
(/)  Mat.  xiii.  19  ss.  xxi.  31  s.    Lu.  vii.  44  ss. 
(g)  Mat.  XX!.  43  s.  xxii.  7. 13.    Lu.  xiv.  24. 
(A)  Mat.  xiii.  24— 33.    Lu.  xiii.  6  ss.  (i)  o.  ii. 


1 «  Lessing,  Diss.  I.  p.  131  ss, 
2  0  Le/sswg,  p.  114  S5. 


224  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

teeth,  and  belJy,  bear  no  resemblance  to  contending  parties, 
considered  generally,  but  are  among  their  number.  Nor  does 
the  conspiracy  of  the  other  members  to  subdue  the  belly  by 
starvation  resemble  discord,  considered  generally,  but  it  is  a 
dissension  with  the  adverse  member,  one  of  the  several  kinds 
of  discord.  Nor,  lastly,  is  the  extreme  wasting  of  the  whole 
body  similar  to  the  unhappy  consequences  of  dissension,  but 
it  is  comprised  in  the  class  of  the  evils  which  arise  from  dissen^ 
sion  generally,  and  is  an  example  of  them.  But  Menenius 
used  this  fable  for  the  purpose  of  comparison,  that  is,  as  a 
fable  of  the  compound  class,  and  consequently,  allegorical. 
For  he  compared  the  belly  to  the  patricians,  the  other  mem- 
bers to  the  Roman  people,  the  intestine  strife  between  the 
members  of  the  body  to  the  hatred  of  the  people  against  the 
patricians,  and  the  starvation  of  the  body  to  the  impending 
ruin  of  the  city. 

To  give  another  instance ;  Stesichorus,  as  quoted  by 
Aristotle,  (k)  compared  the  Himerians  to  the  horse*  who, 
desirous  of  revenge  upon  the  stag,  permitted  the  hunter  to 
bridle,  saddle,  and  mount  him  for  the  chase  ;  their  enemies, 
to  the  stag ;  Phalaris,  whom  they  had  elected  their  com- 
mander in  chief  {quTriyov  auroxparo^a)  to  the  man  j  his  govern- 
ment to  the  bridle,  already  put  on ;  and  the  grant  of  body 
guards,  from  which  the  fable  was  intended  to  dissuade  them, 
to  the  act  of  mounting.  But  if  this  same  fable  were  used  for 
the  purpose  of  persuading  any  one  not,  in  avoiding  one  ex- 
treme, to  hurry  to  the  other,  or  not  to"  make  use  of  a  remedy 
worse  than  the  disease,  the  allegory  would  vanish.  The  horse 
could  not  be  said  to  resemble  a  person,  who,  to  shun  a  lesser 
evil,  runs  into  a  greater,  but  as  he  actually  does  so,  would  be 

(fc)  Rhetor.  Lib.  ii.  c.  \t. 


*  Quern  cervus,  pugna  melior»  communibus  herbis 
Pellebat,  donee  minor  in  certamine  longo 
Imploravit  opes  hominis,  frenumquc  reccpit ; 
Sed,  postquam  victor  violens  discesait  ab  hoste, 
Non  equitem  dorso,  non  frenum  depulit  ore. 

HoRAT.  Epist.  I.  xi.  34  s». 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  225 

an  example  of  that  fault,  displaying  the  need  of  prudence  in 
avoiding  difficulties* 


§.  VI. 

Whenever,  therefore,  any  fable  of  our  Lord  is  so  constructed, 
as  that  its  subject  and  predicate  are  included  as  a  species  in  the 
subject  and  predicate  of  the  moral  precept  which  it  is  intend- 
ed to  express ;  such  fable  is  rather,  with  respect  to  moral 
doctrine,  an  example,  than  a  similitude.     Yet  on  another  ac- 
count, namely,  with  respect  to  the  fact  which  occasioned 
its  composition,  it  may  be  a  similitude  or  comparison  of  one 
example  of  a  general  truth  or  precept  with  another.     Thus 
the  Pharisee  and  the  publican  (/)  have  no  resemblance  to  the 
•whole  class  (m)  of  men  who  indulge  in  self-complacency,  or 
who  are  mindful  of  their  own  sinfulness,  but  each  is  an  exam- 
ple of  the  class  to  which  he  belongs.     In  like  manner,  the  rich 
men,  the  end  of  whose  course  is  described  by  Christ,  (n)  are 
comprized  in  that  class  of  men  who,  neglecting  religious  mat- 
ters, set  their  affections  on  the  good  things  of  this  world,  and 
experience  a  great  and  melancholy  change  at  the  time  of 
death.     Yet  the  object  particularly  pointed  at  in  Lu.  xviii.  9, 
is  not  the  class  of  self-righteous  men,  but  a  certain  species  in- 
cluded in  that  class  equally  with  the  Pharisee  who  is  repre- 
sented in  the  fable.     Now  as  individuals  may  resemble  an  in- 
dividual, the  persons  against  whom  the  fable  is  especially  di- 
rected, may  be  said  to  be  like  the  Pharisee,  and  those  whom 
they  despised  to  be  like  the  publican.  So  in  the  second  instance, 
the  person  who  disagreed  with  his  brother  concerning  his  in- 
heritance, (o)  and  such  of  the  others  (jo)  as,  like  the  rich  man 
described  by  Christ,  {q)  displayed  an  over-fondness  for  earthly 
things,  were  all  of  the  number  of  those  who  care  only  for  the  • 

0  Lu.  xviii.  10.  ss.  (?/i)  v.  14.  .  (n)  Lu.  xii.  16.  ss.  xvi.  I9,  ss. 

(0)  Lu.  xii.  13.  Q})  V.  15.  (9)  v.  16.  ss. 


♦  Incidat  in  Syllam  cupicns  vitarc  Charybdim. 

29 


226  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

comforts  of  this  life,  and  neglect  the  things  of  God  (r),—- and 
therefore  might  and  ought  to  be  compared  with  that  rich  ma». 
Again,  the  Pharisees,  who  were  covetous,  {s)  proud,  (/)  given 
to  pleasure,  (u)  and  disobedient  to  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets, (w)  ^*  might  with  propriety  compare  their  present  pros- 
perity and  their  manners  with  the  prosperity  and  character  of 
the  rich  man,  {x)  and  learn  what  a  sudden  change  of  circum- 
stances might  ensue,  (y) 


§.  VII. 

There  are,  however,  other  fables  which  in  reality  are  not 
examples  of  the  general  doctrine  which  they  inculcate,  but  are 
images  and  allegories  of  the  doctrine  itself.  For  it  may  happen 
that  a  fable  is  used  to  express  some  general  doctrine,  which 
again  is  comprized  in  some  other  still  more  general,  in  which 
case  the  subject  and  predicate  of  the  fable  will  be  included 
as  species  in  the  subject  and  predicate  of  the  latter,  and  not 
in  those  of  the  former.^^     Thus  the  fable  of  Menenius  not 

(r)  V.  21.  (5)  xvi.  14.  (0  V.  15. 

(u)  V.  18.  comp.  Matt.  v.  20.  31.  s.  (w)  Lu.  xxi.  16.  comp.  vii.  30. 

(x)  xvi.  19^.  ss.  30.  [(y)  v.  22.  25.  s. 


2  1  It  is  probable  that  the  rich  man  described  in  the  parable,  Lu.  xvi, 
39.  ss.is  intended  to  be  censured  for  a  want  of  regard  for  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  as  bis  brothers,  who  resembled  himself  (v.  28,)  are  repre- 
sented (v.  30,)  as  likely  to  pay  no  respect  to  their  authority. 

a  2  We  do  not  deny  it  to  be  possible,  that  the  subject  and  predicate  of 
the  fable  may  be  comprized,  as  species  in  a  genus,  in  the  subjects  and 
predicates  both  of  the  more  general  doctrine  and  of  that  which  is 
subordinate.  So  the  horse  in  the  fable  of  Stbsichorus  may  be  an  ex- 
ample not  only  of  such  as  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  a  lesser  evil,  incur  a 
greater^  ($•  v.),  but  also  in  particular  of  those  who  give  up  their  liberty  ta 
Iteep  out  of  poverty,  in  which  way  it  is  applied  by  Horace  (Epist.  Lib.  i- 
Ep.  X.)  who,  after  recounting  the  fable  ($.  v.  notet )  subjoins  the  fol- 
lowing moral  (itjimoS/ok)  v.  39 — 41 : 

Sic,  qui  pauperiera  veritus  potiore  metallis 
Libertate  caret,  dominum  vehet  improbus,  atque 
Serviet  aeternum,  que  parvo  nesciet  uti. 
This  doctrine  is  comprized  in  the  other  of  a  more  general  nature,  which 
is  pointed  out  in  $.  v. 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  227 

©nly  admits  of  being  used  for  the  purpose  of  reconciling  the 
Roman  plebeian  party  with  the  patricians,  (2)  or  of  teaching 
the  injurious  effects  of  dissensions  upon  both  the  contending 
parties  generally,  but  is  also  capable  of  being  employed  to  show 
tliat  mutual  contentions  between  any  magistrates  and  subjects 
whatsoever,  or  if  you  please,  between  the  citizens  of  a  state  or 
in  a  family  or  among  Christians,  are  productive  of  evil  to  the 
contending  parties,  none  of  which  can  dispense  with  the  ser- 
vices of  the  others.  Now  it  is  plain  that  the  contending 
members  of  the  human  body  are  not  to  be  considered  as  parts 
of  th^  class  of  citizens  (to  select  this  from  the  preceding  ex- 
amples), but  that  the  latter  are  one  species  of  the  class  of  con- 
tending parties,  the  former  another,  so  that  the  one  may  be 
used  as  an  image,  or  similitude,  of  the  other,  but  not  as  an  in- 
stance or  example.  The  fable  of  Menenius,  therefore,  be- 
comes an  allegory  when  applied  to  the  dissensions  of  citizens, 
while  on  the  other  hand  both  the  less  general  precept  which 
it  would  then  convey, — that  dissensions  among  citizens  are 
injurious  to  both, — and  the  allegorical  illustration  of  that 
precept  in  the  fable  itself,  would  be  distinct  examples  of  the 
more  general  doctrine — that  all  dissensions  are  hurtful  to 
both  contending  parties.  To  give  another  instance,  the  fox 
in  the  fable,  who  despises  the  bunch  of  grapes  above  his 
reach,  belongs  to  the  number  of  those  who  pretend  in  a  case 
of  necessity  to  be  guided  by  deliberation  and  choice,  and 
therefore  the  fable  may  be  considered  as  an  example  of  the 
general  doctrine  which  it  inculcates,  if  applied  to  such  as 
make  a  merit  of  necessity,  {rovg  •s'owvrag  Tr]v  amyxviv  (piXor/juwav). 
But  suppose  the  fable  to  be  addressed  to  those  who  despise 
the  liberal  arts,  which  they  are  unable  to  acquire,  and  to  con- 
vey the  moral,  that  the  arts  are  despised  by  the  ignorant  only, 
which  is  a  branch  of  the  more  general  doctrine.  In  this  case 
the  fox  would  be  an  image  or  similitude,  not  an  example,  of 
those^against  whom  the  fable  would  be  directed,  and  the 
bunch  of  grapes,  which  in  the  first  instance  was  an  example 
of  things  which  are  not  attainable,  would  now  be  an  image 


!228  THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST. 

of  another  sort  of  impossibility, — ^the  acquisition  of  the  arts 
by  those  who  profess  to  despise  them,  because  above  their 
capacity. 

Many  of  the  fables  (Xoyoi)  of  Christ,  are  of  a  similar  descrip- 
tion ;  for  the  Saviour,  in  pursuance  of  the  object  of  his  mis- 
sion, was  accustomed  to  inculcate  morals  having  a  particular 
reference  to  God  and  the  truths  of  religion,  rather  than  merely 
general  precepts.  So,  in  Matt.  xiii.  3.  ss.,  24.  ss.,  31,  s.,  his  de- 
sign was  not  to  declare  the  general  truths  ;  that  the  best  in- 
structions are,  with  respect  to  a  majority  of  the  hearers,  thrown 
away ;  that  evils  are  to  be  borne  with,  lest  their  removal  be 
attended  with  that  of  good  also ;  and,  that  great  events  often 
spring  from  small  beginnings :  but  to  teach  the  following, 
comprized  respectively  in  those  just  mentioned;  that  from 
various  causes  the  generality  of  men  would  receive  little  or 
no  benefit  from  the  most  salutary  doctrines,  divinely  promul- 
gated; that  even  wicked  men  are  to  be  tolerated  in  the 
Christian  church  till  they  may  be  separated  from  the  number 
of  the  citizens  of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  at  the  command  of 
the  Lord,  without  any  injury  to  the  good,  whom  we  should 
not  be  able  always  to  exempt  from  sharing  in  their  fate  ;  and 
that  there  is  no  reason  to  despair,  if  the  commmencement  of 
the  divine  kingdom  be  but  small.  The  fable  of  the  grain  of 
mustard  seed,  therefore,  although  it  might  have  been  an  ex- 
ample of  the  general  truth,  that  great  events  often  take  their 
rise  from  small  beginnings,  yet  in  the  intention  of  Christ  was 
rather  an  allegory  inculcating  a  doctrine  included  in  that 
general  truth,  respecting  the  great  increase  which  the  king- 
dom of  God  should  receive,  notwithstanding  its  small  begin- 
nings. With  respect  to  the  others  (the  other  wvoi),  (a)  no  one 
will  deny  that  they  are  allegories,  who  has  reflected  on  the  in- 
terpretations given  by  Christ  himself,  {b)  in  which  the  sub- 
ject and  the  image  used  are  plainly  compared. 

(o)  Matt  xJii.  3.  ss.  24.  ss.  (6)  Lu.  viii.  M.  ss.    Matt.  xiii.  37.  ss. 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST. 


§.  VIII. 

Even  the  loss  general  doctrine  thus  conveyed  by  a  fable, 
may  be  applied,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  most  general 
truth,  (c)  to  the  instruction  of  particular  individuals.  The 
fable  of  the  fox  and  grapes,  for  instance,  may  be  applied,  not 
only  to  ignorant  despisers  of  the  arts  in  general,  {d)  but  also 
specifically  to  some  particular  despisers  of  a  certain  art. 
Not  a  few  of  this  sort  of  fables,  too,  occur  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. That  in  Matt.  xxi.  28.  ss.,  for  instance,  might,  in  a 
general  sense,  apply  to  all  who  promise  readily,  but  perform 
less  than  those  who  at  first  display  some  degree  of  unwilling- 
ness. But  Christ  makes  use  of  it  to  rebuke  such  as  were  dis- 
obedient to  God,  although  they  boasted  of  their  piety  ;  and 
among  these,  it  relates  in  particular  t©  the  Pharisees  and 
Jewish  nobles,  (e)  who  esteemed  themselves  much  better 
than  the  rest  of  their  nation,  and  yet  made  much  more  opposi- 
tion to  the  will  of  God,  declared  to  them  by  John,  (/)  than 
the  very  persons  whom  they  despised  as  sinners.  The  fa- 
ther, therefore,  is  not  to  be  considered  as  an  example  of  any  one 
that  makes  some  request  to  another  ;  the  first  mentioned  son,  of 
one  that  denies  a  request ,  yet  at  length  performs  it,  and  the  other 
son,  of  owe  that  promises  without  performance  :  but  the  father 
is  an  image,  or  allegorical  representation,  of  GOD  ;  the  first 
son,  of  men  now  pious,  although  at  first  of  a  different  charac- 
ter, and  yet  not  of  these  in  general,  but  properly  of  the  publi- 
cans and  sinners,  who  had  suffered  themselves  to  be  convert- 
ed by  John ;  and  the  other  son,  of  men  really  wicked,  although 
professing  to  be  pious,  and  among  these  more  particularly  of 
the  Pharisees.  In  like  manner,  the  object  of  the  fable  in 
Lu.  xiv.  16.  ss.,  is  not  to  inculcate  the  general  truth,  that  con- 
tempt of  benefits  affords  so  much  the  greater  cause  for  indig- 
nation, but  to  show  how  GOD  will  regard  the  contempt  of  his 
benefits,  and  particularly  of  those  which  related  to  the  etei-nal 
salvation  of  the  Jews.      It  is  therefore  an  allegory,  in  which 


(c)  $,  VI.  (d)  \.  VII.  (<•)  V.  23,  45.  (/)  V.  25.  s.,  32, 


230  THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST. 

the  feast  represents  the  future  happiness  of  the  good  ;  (g)  the 
giver  of  the  feast,  is  not  an  example  of  a  benefactor  in  general, 
but  strictly  an  image  of  GOD ;  and  the  guests  who  excuse 
themselves  represent,  not  generally,  those  vs^ho  despised  prof- 
fered benefits,  but  in  particular  the  Jews  who  rejected  the  di- 
vine benefit  offered  them  by  Christ. 

The  preceding  remarks  (Ji)  we  deem  sufficient  to  show 
that  even  the  fables  employed  by  Christ  are  a  sort  of  simili- 
tudes,^ and  on  that  account  may  rightly  receive  the  name  of 
Parables,  (i) 


§.  IX. 

The  use  of  a  fable  agrees  with  that  of  an  example,  properly 
so  called,  in  this  resp«ct,  that  its  object  is  to  illustrate  the  doc- 
trine of  which  it  is  a  fictitious  example,  (k)  For  as  an  ex- 
ample serves  to  reduce  a  general  doctrine  to  a  particular 
case,  and  so  conduces  to  the  intuitive  knowledge  of  that  doc- 
trine,^ in  the  same  way  a  fable,  so  far  as  it  is  an  example  of 
a  general  doctrine,  assists  the  acquisition  of  an  intuitive  know- 
ledge of  the  truth.*  Nor  is  it  any  objection,  that  the  ex- 
ample thus  presented  to  our  consideration,  is  merely  ficti- 
tious. For  although  true  examples  possess  this  peculiar  ad- 
vantage, that  they  confirm  the  doctrine  which  is  deduced  from 
them,^^  yet  those  of  s.  fictitious  character  are  equally  service- 
rs-) V.  U.  8.  (A)  5.  VI— vni.  (i)  }.  IT.  ik)  {.  vi. 


2  3  Of  this  description  are  evidently  Mat.  xiii.  24,  31,  33,  44,  47. 
xviii.  23.  XX.  1.  xxii.  2.  xxv.  1.     Lu.  xiii.  18 — 21. 

2  *  Comp.  WoLFius  Philos.  Pract.  Univers.  P.  II.  $.  258.  ss.  [  "  Ex- 
amples give  a  quicker  impression  than  arguments,"  says  Bacon,  which 
is  the  purport  of  Stork's  'conducing  to  an  inluitive  knowledge.'     Tr.  ] 

*  [  Senkca  declares  '  Parabolas  crebro  usurpandas  esse,  ut  imbeeili- 
tatis  nostrae  adminicula  sint.'  Ep.  LIX.  p.  149.  Tom.  11.  0pp.  ed. 
Gromov.      Tr.  ] 

2  «  See  WoLFiDS,  ubi  supra,  $.  266.  ss. 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  231 

able  in  producing  vl  clear  and  vivid  knowledge  of  a  doctrine 
the  truth  of  which  is  already  ascertained  from  other  sources. 
Rational  fables,  moreover,  (to  which  description  all  those  of 
Christ  belong,)  assume  nothing  which  is  at  all  at  variance 
with  the  natural  course  of  things,  (/)  and  therefore  are  the 
less  likely  to  convey  to  the  mind,  intent  upon  the  doctrine 
which  they  teach,  the  notion  of  their  fictitious  character.  The 
folly,  for  example,  of  men  who  are  solely  intent  upon  heaping 
up  riches  which  they  never  have  an  opportunity  to  enjoy,  is 
much  more  clearly  and  vividly  perceived,  when  we  place  be- 
fore our  eyes,  as  it  were,  the  rich  man  Lu.  xii.  16.  ss.,  with  his 
possessions  and  his  hopes  and  projects,  and  the  awful  circum- 
stance of  his  unlooked  for  death,  about  to  take  place  that  very 
night,  than  it  would  be  in  any  other  way.  This  effect  will  be  in 
no^wise  lessened  by  the  knowledge  that  the  story  is  but  a  fiction, 
because  the  frail  and  transitory  nature  of  earthly  things  is  al- 
ready so  well  known  from  experience,  that  it  is  not  proof  of 
this  by  argument,  but  a  vivid  sense  of  the  truth  already  ac- 
knowledged, that  is  needed,  and  the  very  fable  which  is  used 
to  produce  this  sense,  contains  only  such  circumstances  as  our 
previous  knowledge  of  this  general  truth  convinces  us  may 
have  actually  occurred,  and  therefore  may  be  assumed  as  facts. 
It  may  be  objected  that  this  use  cannot  pertain  to  all  the 
fables  of  Christ,  inasmuch  as  it  is  undeniable  that  many  of 
these  are  not  examples  of  the  doctrine  which  they  inculcate, 
but  allegories,  (m)  But  certainly  the  less  general  doctrine 
which  they  convey  is  subordinate  to  another  of  a  more  general 
character,  of  which  the  fables  themselves  may  be  considered 
as  examples,  (n)  and  so  assisting  to  the  intuitive  knowledge  of 
that  doctrine,  which  knowledge  produces  the  effect  of  render- 
ing the  less  general  doctrine,  which  it  was  the  immediate  ob- 
ject of  Christ  to  inculcate  in  such  fables,  more  easily  proved, 
and  more  distinctly  known.  For  example,  the  analogy  ofna^ 
tural  events,  made  use  of  in  Matt.  xiii.  3.  ss.,  24.  ss.,  31.  ss., 
remarkably  illi^strates  the  facts  that  divine  truth  is  not  defec- 
tive although  it  may  produce  no  good  to  many  ;  that  it  may  be 

(/)  {.  III.  Uft)  {.  VII.  vin.  (n)  5.  vin. 


232  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

prudent  to  tolerate  wicked  persons  in  the  church ;  and  that 
the  small  beginnings  of  the  Christian  dispensation  might  pro- 
duce a  great  and  salutary  change  in  the  condition  of  the  hu- 
man race.  The  fables  there  given  are  examples  of  the  general 
truths  already  pointed  out,  (o)  (as,  for  instance,  of  this,  that 
small  beginnings  often  give  rise  to  great  events,)  assisting  the 
attainment  of  an  intuitive  knowledge  of  those  truths,  and 
even,  (inasmuch  as  experience  teaches  us  that  the  circum- 
stances related  by  Christ  do  often  occur,  although  the  his- 
tories are  feigned),  (p)  confirming  their  truth.  In  this  way 
they  induce  us  readily  to  acknowledge  that  the  case  may  be 
similar  in  the  Christian  dispensation,  e.  g.  that  great  events 
may  spring  from  small  beginnings.^ — To  give  another  instance, 
the  fable  which  occurs  in  Matt,  xviii.  23.  ss.  is  an  example  of 
the  general  doctrine,  that  we  must  not  do  to  others  what  we 
would  not  that  others  should  do  to  us,  and  that  we  have  no 
just  ground  for  complaint  when  we  receive  the  same  usage 
that  we  have  not  scrupled  to  give  to  them  ;  and  is  very  useful 
in  conveying  an  intuitive  knowledge  of  that  doctrine.  The 
effect  of  this  is,  that  it  is  impossible  to  disapprove  of  the  pre- 
cept, subordinate  to  the  same  general  doctrine,  which  it  was  the 
object  of  the  Saviour  to  convey,  (q)  and  as  our  own  judgment 
has  approved  of  the  sentence  passed  by  the  king  in  the  fable, (r) 
we  cannot  do  otherwise  than  allow  the  justice  of  the  divine 
determination  not  to  forgive  the  sins  of  the  implacable,  who 
refuse  to  forgive  the  sins  of  others,  since  this  determination  is 
another  example  comprized  in  the  same  general  rule  of  con- 
duct. 

The  great  utility  of  fables  in  general,^  consists  in  this,  that 

(o)  {.VII.  (/))  Note  10.  (q)v.35.  (r)  i>.  32,  ss, 


a  6  If  a  fable  were  used  as  an  example  (J.  vi.)  of  the  general  principle, 
contained  in  it,  its  application  to  sxny  particular  persojis,  either  by  the 
author  or  by  the  hearer  or  reader,  would  be  a  discovery  of  something 
similar.  So  the  general  rule,  that  he  wl^o  extorts  from  his  inferior  an 
article  which  kc  himself  possesses  in  abundance,  acts  most  unjustly,  and 


I 


IHE  PARABLES  OV  CURlbT.  233 

they  declare  the  doctrine  or  truth,  which  if  it  were  directly 
pressed  upon  us,  would  doubtless  be  much  weakened  by  the 
force  of  our  passions,  by  another  exaoiplc,  similar  to  our  case, 
and  comprized  under  the  same  general  rule.  In  proportion, 
too,  as  fables  assist  the  acquisition  of  inttdtive  knowledge  in  a 
remarkable  degree,  they  also  facilitate  the  recollection  of  the 
doctrines  which  they  inculcate,  and  consequently,  their  use. 
For  the  more  clearly  and  distinctly  we  know  a  thing,  the 
more  deeply  is  it  impressed  on  our  memory.  Comp.  Chry- 
sosTOM  in  Joan.  iv.  35. 


§.  X. 

But  although  even  tlie  fables  which  are  to  be  ranked  as 
allegories,  serve  to  illustrate  the  subjects  to  which  they  are 
applied  ;  (s)  yet  they  may  also  answer  the  end  of  clothing 

is)  a.  IX. 


is  deserving  of  very  heavy  punishment,  might  be  extmplijied  by  the 
fable  in  ii-  Sara.  xii.  1 — 4,  in  which  case  the  act  of  David,  v.  7 — 9 
would  be  a  similar  instance.  But  Nathan  very  wisely  avoided  a  direct 
introduction  of  the  general  principle  in  his  reproof  of  David,  and  first 
induced  the  king  to  acknowledge  its  truth  in  another  example  where 
there  was  no  danger  of  his  being  swayed  by  partiality.  After  this  ac- 
knowledgment, he  could  not  deny  the  correctness  of  the  principle  (?;.  13.) 

even  though  turned  upon  himself  (v.  7.  ss.)  ;  (comp.  Lu.  x.  37.)  * 

In  the  same  manner  as  a  general  rule  is  much  more  readily  and  vividly 
perceived  when  conveyed  in  a  fable  which  is  an  example  of  that  very 
■principle,  ($.  VI.)  and  admits  of  a  much  readier  application  to  particu- 
lar individuals;  so  the  application  of  a  general  principle  to  one  less 
general  is  much  facilitated  by  a  fable  which  exemplifies  the  former, 
($.  Vlf.)  as  we  have  ssen  in  the  instance  from  Mat.  xviii.  23.  ss.,  and  it 
thus  becomes  much  more  eff*ectual  with  relation  to  particular  individuals 
(comp.  Mat.  xxi.  31,  41.  Lu.  vii.  43.)  if  the  less  general  principle,  to 
which  the  application  of  the  more  general  has  been  made  ($.  VII.)  be. 
again  applied  ($.  VIII.)  to  them. 


*  [See  this  ^sjubject  happily  treated  in  Porteus'  Lecture^.-  I^ect  xi 
Vol.  1.  p.  283.  s?.  ed.  I.ond.  1808. 


30 


^34  IHE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

them  in  obscurity^  and  become  ofescwre  allegories,  or  enigmas, 
if  propounded  without  any  explanation.  Many  ^  of  this  sort 
were  uttered  by  Christ,  especially  at  the  time  described  by 
Matthew,  c.  xiii,  Mark,  c.  iv,  and  Luke,  c.  viii.,  he  having  de- 
termined to  discourse  of  the  heavenly,  {t)  i,  e,  ^'  divine  (m) 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah  and  his  Father,  (v)  more  fully  than 
at  other  times.     His  object  was  to  show  at  length,  that  the 

(0  Mat.  xiii.  11,  24,  SI,  33,  44,  s.  47. 
(u)  Mar.  iv.  11,  26,  30.  Lu.  xiii.  18,  20. 
iv)  Dan.  vii.  13.  s.    Mat.  xiii.  37,  41,  43. 


3  7  Comp.  Flacii  Clavem  Script.  P.  ii.  p.  267,  and  the  celebrated 
Teller's  note  *  *  on  Torretini  Tract,  de  S.  Scripturae  interpreta- 
tione,  p.  254. 

3  8  This  is  so  plainly  affirmed  by  Matthew  (xiii.  3,)  and  Mark  (iv.  2, 
13),  that  there  seems  to  be  hardly  any  doubt  that  more  were  spoken  to 
the  people  than  the  four  which  Matthew  relates  (xiii.  3.  ss.  24.  ss.  31 — 
33,)  as  having  been  uttered  in  the  public  discourse.  The  three  others 
given  in  that  chapter  (v.  44.  ss.)  cannot  be  taken  into  account,  as  they 
were  propounded  to  the  disciples  bi^  themselves  (».  36.  51.  s.).  But  the 
testimony  of  Mark  in  iv,  33,  is  even  more  express  than  the  preceding,  for 
he  makes  mention  of  many  other  parables,  beside  those  which  he  himself 
has  given.  Now  Matthew  (xiii.  24.  ss.  33.)  only  relates  two  which  are 
not  recorded  by  Mark,  as  having  been  publicly  spoken.  If,  then,  we 
suppose  that  he  has  given  all  the  '  other  parables '  to  which  Mark  re- 
fers, we  must  allow  that  the  expression  '  many  others  '  may  signify  only 
two.  And  even  in  this  case  it  must  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  para- 
ble related  Mat.  xiii.  24.  ss.,  is  different  from  the  similar  one  in  Mar.  iv. 
26.  S3.,  else  there  will  be  but  one  short  parable  peculiar  to  Matthew 
(xiii.  33.)  which,  surely,  is  not  the  '  many  '  spoken  of  by  Mark. — But 
the  parable  in  Mark,  iv.  26,  ss.  seems  to  be  no  less  distinct  from  that 
in  Matt.  xiii.  24.  ss.,  than  the  latter  is  from  the  one  which  so  mu«h  re- 
sembles it  in  V.  47.  ss.  For  in  Mark  there  is  no  mention  of  the  tares, 
which  in  Mat.  xiii.  25.  ss.  are  the  principal  feature  of  the  parable,  (r. 
36.)  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  Matthew  is  entirely  silent  respecting  the 
unobserved  progress  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  it  is  the  chief  ob- 
ject of  the  parable  given  by  Mark  to  represent.  Now  if  the  parable 
given  by  Mark  is  different  from  that  in  Matthew,  it  is  evident  that  Mat- 
thew does  not  relate  aU  the  parables  spoken  publicly  on  that  occasion, 
and  that  it  is  one  of  the  'many  others  '  omitted  by  Matthew,  that  has 
been  preserved  by  Mark,  iv.  26.  ss. 

.*  »  Comp.  Dan.  iv.  23.  Lu.  xv.  18.  and  Koppe,  Nov.  Test.  Gr.  Vol.  i. 
p.  216.  [also  the  author's  Dissertation  De  notione  regni  ccelestis, 
Note  6.      Tr.1 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  '235  ' 

character  of  this  kingdom  would  certainly  in  the  end  appear 
to  be  in  the  liighest  degree  glorious,  {w)  but  that  notwith- 
standing this,  its  condition  would  at  first  be  different,  and  its 
foundation  be  laid  in  the  very  preaching  of  the  gospel  which 
was  so  much  despised,  by  which,  although  extended  to  many 
with  no  effect,  the  subjects  of  the  heavenly  kingdom  should 
be  collected  and  prepared  (x)  for  future  glory,  (y)     But  as 
this  world  is  a  nursery  (z)  for  heaven,  it  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary that  the  evil  be  mingled  with  the  good,  (a)  lest  either 
such  as  might  afterwards  reform,  should  be  untimely  remov- 
ed, or  such  as  were  really  better  than  they  appeared,  should 
be  reckoned  among  the   bad,   and  destroyed  together  with 
them,  [bj     For  both  the  extensive  and,  ultimately,  splendid 
kingdom  of  God  generally,  and  the  excellence  and  happiness 
of  each  of  its  members  in  particular,  would  take  their  rise 
from  small  beginnings,  (c)  and  increase  by  imperceptible  de- 
grees, {d)    Nevertheless,  the  privileges  of  this  invisible  king- 
dom would  be  so  greatly  prized  by  all  that  were  truly  wise  («) 
that,  setting  aside  all  the  enjoyments  and  advantages  of  this 
life,  they  would  pant  after  that  alone. — But  the  notion  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  Messiah  entertained  by  the  Jews  (/)  was  so 
different  from  this,  that  it  was  impossible  they  should  be  {^eas- 
ed with  those  beginnings,  so  far  removed  from  every  sort  of 
pomp,  and  with  such  a  long  delay  (g)  of  its  ultimate  splendour. 
Besides,  by  far  the  greater  part  had  been  so  deaf  to  the  other 
instructions  and  admonitions  of  Christ,  and  so  blind  to  the 
evidence  afforded  by  miracles  so  many  and  so  great,  (h)  that 
they  were  neither  desirous  of  salvation,  (i)  nor  possessed  of  a 
teachable  disposition,  nor  willing  to  beheve  in  such  doctrines 
as  were  mysterious  {k)  {i,  c.  till  then  unknown,  and  out  of  the 
range  of  popular  opinion,)  on  the  sole  authority  of  Jesus,  as  a 
divinely  commissioned  teacher.      On  account  (/)  of  this  their 
general  ignorance  of  religious  things,  our  Lord  in  teaching 


(to)  Mat.  xiii.  43.  (x)  v.  43.  (y)  v.  3.  ss. 

(z)  V.  38.  (a)  V.  SO,  47.  (b)  v.  29. 

(c)  V.  31—33.  (rf)  Mar.  iv.  27.  s.  (e)  Mat.  xiii.  44-46. 

(/)  Lu.  xvii.  20.  (g)  Comp.  Lu.  six.  11. 

{h)  Mat.xiii.  13—15.  (t)  v.  15.  (k)  v.  11.  (0  v.  IS. 


2S6  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

them  made  use  of  parables  without  explanations,  (m)  that  see- 
ing the  image  they  might  not  perceive  the  object  which  it 
was  intended  to  represent,  and  that  they  might  hear  the  words 
indeed,  but  not  comj)rehend  their  meaning,  (n)  if  peradven- 
ture  ^  they  might  in  this  way  be  led  to  reform  and  obtain  the 
pardon  of  their^sins.  (o)  This  proceeding  might  be  adopted^* 
for  this  reason  ;  that  so  the  very  ohsG^irity  of  the  obnoxious 
doctnnc  taught  zcould  prevent  the  worst  of  the  people  from 
deriding  Jesus  on  account  of  his  preaching  a  kingdom  of  the 
Mei^siah  so  different  from  that  which  they  expected,  and  from 
thus  increasing  their  crime,  (a  measure  particularly  necessary 
at  that  time,  on  account  of  the  detestable  {p)  reports  lately 
spread  among  the  populace)  (7)  while  at  the  same  time  others 
might  be  roused  by  this  enigmatic  teaching  out  of  the  stupid 
indifterence  with  which  they  had  been  accustomed  to  re- 
gard the  deeds  and  instructions  of  Jesus,  and  brought  to  re- 
flection, w^hich  might,  in  the  better  disposed  at  least,  result  in 
a  more  careful  attention  to  the  precepts  of  our  Lord,  and  a 
more  diligent  examination  of  his  conduct,  for  the  time  to 
come,  and  so  produce  their  gradual  conversion.  Even  to  the 
disciples  themselves,  who,  unlike  the  rest,  (r)  were  so  far  led 
by  the  authority  of  Christ,  as  to  be  able  to  hear  the  truth  un- 
(hsguised  without  oftence,  (s)  the  enigmas  propounded  to  the 
people  would  be  useful,  not  only  on  account  of  their  throwing 
greater  light  upon  the  subject  to  which  they  related,  (<)  as 
soon  as,  by  means  of  the  explanation  afterward  given,  (w) 
their  meaning  was  understood,  but  also  because  they  excited 
anjncreased  degree  of  attention  to  the  instructions  which  they 

On)  Mar.  iv.  34.  (m)  Lu.  viii.  10.  (o)  Mar.  iv.  12. 

ip)  Mat.  xii.  31.  ss.  (?)  v.  24.  (r)  Mar.  iv.  33. 

(s)  Mat.  Xiii.  11.  (/)  \.  IX.  (w)  Mar.  iv.  34. 


3  0  Comp.  (MjfTCTJ  11.  Tim.  ii.  25.  Lu.  iii.  15.  and  Brit.  Magaz.  T.  in. 

p.  721.S. 

3  J  It  was  well  said  by  Sallust,  as  we  find  it  quoted  by  BLACBwALr 
(Critica  Sacra  N.  T.  p.  274.  ed.  VVollh.      [  Sacred  Classics.  Vol. 
P-  ]  )  ''■''  *^^*  fAvQuv  t'  AXiiQis  iTTiKgvTrTUf  rovs  fiisv  ayoifTovs 

KxtA*§ovi»y  UK  %x,  Tout  cTi  (TTrvS^cHov?  <j>i\oa-o<pftv  avctyK^tft 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  I^St 

involved,  (v)  Moreover,  we  find  that  the  very  parables  whicti 
vv^ere  used  for  the  purpose  of  rendering  the  instructions  they 
conveyed  obscure  to  the  ignorant  and  unprepared,  were  ser- 
viceable to  the  disciples  of  Jesus  in  rendering  them  perspi- 
cuous,  so  as  both  to  afford  them  at  that  very  time  a  degree  of 
certainty  respecting  doctrines  before  unknown  {w)  and  to  con- 
tribute to  their  preparation  for  the  full  illumination  which  they 
were  to  receive  subsequently  to  the  resurrection  of  their 
Lord.  And  after  they  had  received  that  illumination,  these 
parables  enabled  them  besides  imparting  the  Imowledge  which 
they  then  received,  to  communicate  to  their  hearers  the  older  in- 
structions which  had  been  given  them  before  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  to  confirm  the  new  and  important  doctrines  which  they 
taught  by  the  antecedent  agreement  of  their  master,  {x)  and, 
by  repeating  the'  parables  of  our  Lord,  to  impart  a  knowledge 
of  those  doctrines  to  many,  more  easily  and  vividly  (y)  than 
they  would  otherwise  have  done.  (2:) 


§.  XL 

The  Parables,  the  interpretation  of  which  it  is  the  object  of 
this  essay  to  teach,  are  rational  fables,  or  fictitious  narration 
bearing  the  semblance  of  truth,  (a)  by  means  of  which  our  Lord 
illustrated  (6)  some  moral  doctrine,  (c)  There  are,  therefore, 
two  things  in  them  to  be  considered,  the  doctrine  which  they 
convey,  that  is,  the  thing  signified;  and  the  narration,  or 
similitude^  by  which  it  is  signified.     But  the  parable  itself,  {d) 

(V)  Lu.  viii.  9.  Mat.  xiii.  36.  (to)  v.  11,  51.  (.x)  Mat.xiii. 

(y)    5- IX.  (2)  Mat.  xiii.  52.  comp.  Mar.  iv.  21.  s. 

(O)     ^.  III.  IV.  (6)   5.  IX.  X.  (c)   ^^  V. 

(d)  Mar.  iv.  10.    Mat.  xiii.  18,  36. 


3  2  It  is  true  there  are  some  parables  of  our  Lord,  which  considered 
in  themselves,  ought  rather  to  be  designated  as  examples  than  ns similitudes 
(§ .  VI.).  Butas  the  majority  are  to  be  classed  as allegories(^.  VII. VIII.), 
and  as  even  those  just  mentioned,  in  as  far  as  they  are  compound  (^.  V.) 
partake  of  the  nature  of  a  similitude  ($.  VI.),  we  may  for  the  rest  of  the 


ii38  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

that  is,  (e)  the  sense  of  the  parable  can  only  be  perceived  by 
those  *^  who  understand  the  Jodrme  conveyed,  by  means  of 
the  narration  used.  For  example,  David  did  not  understand 
the  meaning  of  Nathan,  (/)  so  long  as  he  on/^  understood 
and  passed  judgment  on  the  fact  narrated  by  the  prophet,  (g) 
For  the  object  of  the  latter  was  not  to  obtain  a  decision 
against  the  rich  man  whom  he  represented  as  acting  with  so 
much  injustice.  The  king's  idea  did  not  correspond  with  that 
of  the  prophet,  till  the  former  perceived  the  object  {h)  for 
which  the  history  had  been  invented  and  narrated,  (i) — It 
would  be  no  less  a  departure  from  the  meaning  of  Christ,  if 
any  one  should  read  such  parables  as  those  in  Lu.  xvi.  1 — 8. 
and  xviii.  1 — 5,  as  histories.  Their  design  was  certainly 
neither  to  hold  out  a  pattern  for  imitation,  nor  to  warn  against 
the  sorts  of  conduct  which  they  describe,  but  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent character,  {k)  On  the  other  hand,  any  one  who  un- 
derstands the  passage  in  Matth.  vi.  15.  will  certainly  perceive 
the  doctrine  taught  in  xviii.  *23.  ss.,  but  he  will  not  be  able  to 
comprehend  the  parable  in  v.  23.  ss.,  until  he  has  learned  to 
apply  the  narration  to  that  doctrine.  This  intimate  connexion 
of  the  similitude  with  the  thing  signified  occasionally  produces 
the  insertion  of  words  in  the  similitude  which  properly  belong 
only  to  the  object  connected  with  it  in  the  mind  of  a  person 
who  understands  the  parable.     So  in  Matt.  xxii.  10,^  the  ser- 


ie)  Lu.  viii.  9, 11.  (/)  ii.  Sara.  xii.  5.  s.  (g)  ii.  Sam.  xii.  1—4. 

{h)  V.  13.  (i)  V.  7.  ss.  (k)  xvi.  8.  s.  xviii.  6  ss. 


essay  make  use  of  the  term  simihiude  [  or  parable  ],  in  reference  to  all. 
By  this  the  whole  comparison  (§.  I.),  that  is,  both  the  image  and  the  ob- 
jecU  are  usually  intended,  although  occasionally  it  is  applied  to  the 
imaire  alone.  See  Q,uiiitilian  L.  VIII.  c.  iii.  470.  [  p.  398.  ed.  Ox.  ] 
Others  use  the  name  similitude  to  express  the  irgcnte-tt  net^AQtcic,  (first 
member  of  the  comparison)  which,  in  a  regularly  drawn  comparison,  is 
connected  by  the  ef.vta.TrcJ'cvK  or  reciprotol  reference,  with  the  object  of 
which  it  is  the  image.    Quiktil.  ubi  supra,  p.  471.  [  p.  399.  ] 

3  3  Comp.  Calixti  Concordia  iv  evangel,  scriptorum,  L.  IV.  c.  vii. 
p.  184  s. 

3  4  The  description  in  «.  13  of  this  chapter  and  in  c.  xxv.  30,  is  to 
be  understood  of  a  prison,  wry  remote  from  the  place  of  the  feast,  and  from 


THE  ^ARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  239 

vants  are  said  to  have  brought  in  *  both  bad  and  good,'  mean- 
ing *  guests  both  suitably  and  unsuitably  clothed'  (I)  which  in 
the  parable  represent  the  good  and  bad.  On  the  other  hand, 
an  occasional  feature  of  the  image  may  be  retained  even  in  the 
explanation,  if  the  interpretation  of  the  other  parts  i^  so  clear 
as  to  leave  no  difficulty  in  comprehending  the  metaphor. 
Such  is  the  case  in  Mat.  xiii.  19,  22,  23.  So  also  Horace  (m) 
inserts  a  tropical  word  (n)  in  the  application  (o)  of  his  fable : 
vehet,  having  reference  to  the  it^oratfig  (p)  of  the  fable  of  the 
horse  and  the  stag  which  he  had  used. 


§.  XII. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  three  things  are  requisite  to  the  dis- 
covery of  the  grammatical  sense  of  a  parable.  First,  that 
the  fictitious  narration,  or  similitude,  be  understood.  Second, 
that  the  thing  signified  be  ascertained.  Third,  that  the  cor- 
respondence of  the  similitude,  or  narration,  with  its  object  be 
learned. 

With  the  first  of  these  requisites  we  are  at  present  not 
concerned,  as  nothing  more  than  the  ordinary  rules  of  in- 
terpretation, such  as  are  apphcable  to  any  true  history,  is 
needed  for  its  attainment.  However,  not  to  pass  it  over  en- 
tirely, we  may  subjoin  the  single  remark,  that  in  order  to  give 
the  feigned  history  all  its  concinnity,  it  is  sometimes  necessary 
to  imagine  a  circumstance  not  expressed.  So  in  Mat.  xxii. 
we  must  supply  in  imagination  the  circumstance,  that  the 
guests  were  not  led  directly  into  the  banqueting  room,  but 
allowed  a  sufficient  opportunity  to  change  their  dress.  This 
is  not  expressly  affirmed  in  the  narration,  but  it  may  be  infer- 

(0  V.  11.  (m)  Epist.  Lib.  i.  Ep.  x.  (n)  v.  40. 

(0)  See  above,  Note  22.  '  (p)  v.  36,  38. 


all  human  society  J  and  very  dark.  This  is  an  image  of  the  punishments 
which  will  be  inflicted  upon  the  wicked  in  the  world  to  come.  See 
yiii.  12. 


>i40  THE  TARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

red  from  the  expression  scpt/xw^rj  in  v.  12,  and  must  be  assum- 
ed, because  the  command  in  i?.  13  would  otherwise  be  liable 
to  the  imputation  of  great  injustice.  Yet  it  is  not  necessary 
to  determine  whence  the  wedding  garment  was  to  be  pro- 
cured; whether,  for  example,  we  are  to  suppose  that  the 
manw^ho  appeared  without  one  had  a  suitable  garment  at  home, 
but  had  neglected  the  opportunity  given  him  to  go  thither 
and  procure  it ;  or  whether  it  is  to  be  assumed  that  the  king, 
who  had  invited  his  guests  in  such  an  unusal  \vay,{q)  had  also, 
contrary  to  the  general  practice,^^  taken  care  to  offer  theni 
garments  suitable  to  the  occasion.  Neither  of  these  hypo- 
theses is  susceptible  of  proof,  for  Christ  himself  has  said  no- 
thing determinate  upon  the  subject,  his  design  being  merely  to 
show  generally  that  the  soul  must  be  clothed  anew  with 
righteousness  (r)  before  an  admission  to  eternal  happiness  can 
be  obtained,  without  any  intention  to  teach  the  method  of  pro- 
curing the  necessary  vesture. 


§.  XIII. 

The  thing  signified,  or  doctrine  with  reference  to  which  a 
fable  is  propounded,  (the  ascertaining  of  which  is  the  second 
requisite  to  the  discover^^  of  the  grammatical  sense  of  a  para- 
ble) is  usually  indicated  in  the  moral,  called  by  Apthonius 
'XPoiLv&iov,  but  more  commonly  s'^'/acu^jcv.     Our  Lord  himself* 

Oj)  i\  0.  '  (r)  V.  10. 


a  5  It  cannot  be  shown  by  any  good  arguments  that  it  was  customary 
to  present  the  guests  with  garments  suited  to  the  festal  occasion.  See 
IvREBs  Observ.  e  Flav.  Josepho,  in  Matt.  xxii.  12.  We  leave  it  to 
others  to  decide  whether  the  custom  of  presenting  a  Caftan  to  those 
who  are  admitted  to  an  audience  of  the  Turkish  Sultan  bas  any  bearing 
on  this  subject.  Comp.  Luedeke  Expositio  Loconim  Script,  ad.  orien- 
tem  se  referentium  <S.  49,  and  Michaelis  Orient.  Biblioth.  P.  viii.  p. 
HO. 

"'   The  Evangelist  has  prefixed  an  indication  of  thq  subject  of  the  para 
Me.  in  Ln  xviii.  1.9.  xix.  11. 


4^ 


THE  PARABLES  OT  CHRIST.  241 

not  unfrequently  subjoined  to  his  parables  some  indication  of 
their  object  or  even  a  somewhat  copious  exposition ;  e,  g, 
Lu.  xii.  21.  xviii.  14.  Matt,  xviii.  35.  xiii.  49.  s.  xxi.  42.  ss. 
Lu.  vii.  44.  ss.  xvi.  8.  s.  xviii.  6.  ss.  Occasionally,  such  no- 
tices both  precede  and  follow,  as  in  Mat.  xix.  30.  xx.  16.  But 
the  parables  of  Christ  differ  from  other  fables  in  being  gene- 
rally given,  not,  like  them,  in  a  separate  state,  but  in  some  de- 
finite connexion  with  a  context.  This  pecularity  affords  a 
means  of  eliciting  their  meaning,  so  that  a  moral,  or  g«'»(;.udiov, 
is  not  always  needed. 

The  context  of  a  parable  remarkably  conduces  to  a  know- 
ledge of  its  meaning,  by  pointing  out  the  occasion  in  which  it 
was  uttered.  This  will  be  found  to  be  either  the  actions  and 
opinions  of  the  hearers  of  Christ,  as  in  Lu.  xv.  11.  ss.  comp. 
1?.  1,  2 ;  xix.  12.  ss.  comp.  t.  11 ;  or  some  of  our  Lord^s  dis- 
courses, with  which  it  is  in  connexion,  as  in  Mat.  xxv.  1 — 30, 
which  passage  contains  two  parables,  one  teaching  the  necessi- 
ty of  prudence,  the  other  recommending  fidelity,  both  of  which 
virtues  had  been  previously  mentioned.  (5)  So  in  the  parable  of 
the  wedding  feast,  {t)  it  is  the  more  certain  that  the  invited 
guests,  of  whom  but  few  were  admitted  to  the  feast,  (m)  re- 
present the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  because  it  appears  from  the 
context  {v)  that  there  was  then  occasion  for  Christ  to  discuss 
that  subject. 

Lastly,  as  in  interpretation  generally,  great  assistance  may 
be  derived  from  the  use  of  parallel  passages,  so  occasionally 
the  sense  of  a  parable  may  be  ascertained  or  confirmed  by 
means  of  some  other,  similar  to  it.  For  instance,  if  there 
were  no  other  reasons,  a  comparison  of  Mat.  xxii.  ss.,  alone, 
would  render  it  credible  that  the  similar  parable  in  Lu.  xiv. 
16.  ss.  relates,  like  the  former  passage,  to  the  contempt  of  the 

(«)  xxiv.  45.  (0  Matt,  xxik  7,  9.  (u)  v.  8. 13. ». 

(f)  xxi.  43. 


3  «  This  may  directly  impugn  the  opinions  of  the  hearers,  and  on  that 
account;  be  properly  continued  in  the  parabolic  form,  as  in  Lu.  xiii' 

2—2. 

31 


242  TH£  PARABLEii  OF  CHRIST. 

preached  gospel  by  the  Jews,  and  its  propagation  among  th© 
heathen.  We  may  reasonably  infer  that  our  Lord  himself 
intended  this  resemblance  between  his  parables  to  be  observ- 
ed and  used  for  their  interpretation,  from  the  fact  that  when 
he  uttered  a  parable  (w)  which  contained  an  image  similar  to 
that  previously  used  by  him  in  another  parable,  (x)  he  consi- 
dered it  easier  to  be  understood  than  others,  {y) 


§.  XIV. 

Besides  these  external  aids,  (2)  there  are  others  principally 
contained  in  the  parable  itself,  that  assist  the  discovery  of  its 
meaning. 

The  meaning  of  that  class  of  fables  which  consists  of 
examples  of  the  thing  signified,  is  to  be  discovered  by  abstrac- 
tion, which  substitutes  generals  for  particulars,  and  classes  for 
individuals?'^  This  rule  may  be  tried  by  the  fables  of  iEsop 
and  others  of  that  kind ;  but  we  w^ill  proceed  to  its  application 
to  the  parables  of  Christ.  In  the  parable  in  Lu.  xviii.  10.  ss., 
for  instance,  in  order  to  ascertain  its  meaning,  we  must  substi- 
tute for  the  Pharisee,  who  exalts  himself  above  other  men, 
and  particularly  above  the  publican,  and  boasts  in  his  prayers 
which  he  offers  in  the  temple  of  his  fasts  and  giving  of  tithes, 
all  arrogant  men  and  contemners  of  others,  whatsoever,  who 
are  inflated  with  an  exalted  opinion  of  their  own  merits,  of 
whatever  description  they  may  be,  and  who  betiny  this  despo- 
tism in  any  way.  By  the  publican  who  stands  afar  off  from 
the  Pharisee,  with  downcast  eyes,  and  beating  his  breast,  prays 

(to)  Mar.  iv,  3.  ss.  (at)  Jo.  iv.  35.  ss.  (^)  Mar.  iv.  13. 

iz)  $.  xni. 


3  7  That  is  to  say,  as  far  as  the  subject  admits  of  it.  There  are  parti- 
cular ideas  (for  instance,  those  of  death,  and  sepulture.  Lu.  xii.  20.  xvi. 
22.)  which  do  not  admit  of  generalization,  such  as  that  by  which  a 
copious  harvest  (Lu.  xii.  16.  ss.)  is  understood  to  mean  riches  of  every 
kind,  and  begging  (Lu.  xvi.  20),  miseri/  in  general  (v.  26,) 


THE  PARABLRS  OP  CHRIST.  ^43 

God  to  be  merciful  to  him  a  sinner,  we  must  understand  all 
such  aSf  although  despised  hy  others,  are  impressed  loith  a  deep 
sense  of  their  own  sinfulness,  are  desirous  of  the  divine  mercy, 
and  indicate  this  disposition  in  any  way.  The  result  is,  that 
we  must  conclude  that  the  latter  description  of  persons  will 
receive  the  approbation  of  God,  while  the  former  will  be  re- 
jected and  humbled  by  him.  So,  again,  from  the  example  of 
the  Samaritan,  Lu.  x.  33.  ss.,  who  being  strongly  moved  by 
pity,  and  of  a  liberal  disposition,  bound  up  the  wounds  of  a 
Jew  who  had  been  cruelly  maltreated,  had  been  left  without 
aid  by  his  countrymen,  the  priest  and  Levite,  and  must 
perish  for  want  of  speedy  help, — conveyed  him  to  an  inn, 
and  even  provided  for  his  future  sustenance, — ^^this  too,  in  k 
road  infested  by  the  incursions  of  robbers,^  (6)  and  when  he 
could  hardly  spare  the  two  denarii  paid  for  the  support  of  the 

wounded  man:(c) from  this  example  we  learn  that  it 

is  our  duty  to  afford  assistance  to  any  man  who  may  absolute- 
ly need  it,  even  though  he  be  of  different  nation,  customs,  re- 
ligion, or  dispositions  from  ourselves,  (J)  and  even  if  such  as- 
sistance  be  attended  with  difficulty,  expense,  and  peril ;  much 
more  to  do  any  kind  offices,  attended  with  less  difficulty  and 
danger,  that  may  be  needful,  even  to  an  enemy,  (e)  ^ 

But  there  are  many  other  fictitious  narrations,  (/)  which 
cannot  be  considered  as  examples  of  the  thing  signified,  but 
are  included  as  species  under  the  more  general  doctrine,  which 
includes  in  like  manner  the  precept  intended  to  be  conveyed. 

(6)  V.  30.  (c)  V.  35.  (rf)  Cortip.  Jo.  iv.  9.    Eccltts.  i.37.  s. 

(«)Lu.x.  37.  (/)  {.  VI.  vn. 


3s  Comp.  MicBAELis  Gedanken  von  Stinde  und  Geneigthung,  p. 
462,448. 

3»  There  is  reason  for  laying  stress  upon  this  circumstance,  as  the 
lawyer  (v.  29,)  betrayed  a  disposition  to  consider  strangers  and  enemies 
as  having  no  claim  upon  him,  (comp.  Mat.  v.  43,)  and  our  Lord  intro-  w^ 
dnced  a  Samaritan  as  more  benevolent  to  a  Jew  than  the  Jews  them-  -i, 
selves,  for  the  very  purpose  of  shaming  the  Jews  who  were  unwilling  to 
afford  any  assistance  to  Samaritans,  and  showed  little  kindness  to 
stranger*  in  general,  [  See  Porteus'  Lectures.  Lect.  zi.  Vol.  i.  p.  280. 
^s.  ed.  Lond.  180&.      Tr.  li 


244  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

Here  abstraction  alone  will  not  suffice  to  ascertain  the  mean- 
ing of  the  parable,  as  it  will  discover  only  the  more  general 
doctrine,  to  which  both  the  example  given  and  the  thing  signi- 
fied are  subordinate,  but  cannot  define  the  latter.  In  this 
case,  the  general  doctrine  being  first  discovered  by  abstrac- 
tion, other  aids  (g)  must  then  be  used  to  ascertain  the  specific 
dijfference  between  the  example  in  the  parable,  and  the  thing 
intended  to  be  signified.  So,  in  the  parable  in  Mat.  xiii.  31.  s., 
we  first  learn  by  the  process  of  abstraction  that  it  conveys  the 
general  rule,  that  often  a  thing  from  small  beginnings  attains 
to  an  exalted  eminence.  But  that  this  general  truth  is  ap- 
plied by  Christ  peculiarly  to  the  heavenly  kingdom,  is  to  be 
learned  from  the  words  prefixed  to  the  parable :  ofAoia  sgiv  ^ 
§acriXsia  Twv  x^avwv.^"  Again,  in  Mat.  xxi.  28.  ss.  we  discover, 
by  abstraction,  that  the  parable  conveys  the  general  declara- 
tion, that  it  is  not  he  who  makes  a  boast  of  his  obedience,  but 
he  who  renders  it,  although  at  first  he  may  have  refused,  that 
does  the  will  of  him  who  imposes  a  command,  {h)  But  it  is 
from  the  moral  or  application  of  the  parable  in  v.  31.  s.  that 
we  learn  its  particular  reference  to  the  Pharisees  w^ho  boasted 
of  their  obedience  to  the  divine  commands,  and  the  Publicans, 
who  really  rendered  such  obedience. 

From  all  this  it  appears,  that  even  in  this  class  of  parables 
there  remain  some  particulars  which  must  be  converted  into 
generals.  For  example,  the  particulars  in  the  parable  of  the 
grain  of  mustard  seed,  (i)  that  it  is  less  than  all  seeds,  and  that 
in  its  growth  it  surpasses  all  herbs,  and  becomes  a  tree  of  such 
a  size  as  to  afford  shelter  in  its  branches  to  the  birds,  that  is,{k) 
becomes  a  large  (I)  tree  ;  convey  this  general  meaning  ;  that 
great  progress  may  be  made  from  a  small  beginning.  There  is 
no  danger  of  running  into  error  by  this  process  of  generaliza- 

{g)  {.  XIII.  (h)  Comp.  V.  31.  (t)  Matt.  xiii.  32. 

(.k)  Comp.  Dan.  iv.  9. 18.  with  v.  7.  8. 17.  (/)  Lu.  xiii.  19. 


f  »  These  form  a  sort  of  introductory  moral  (a-go/Mt/flior)  which,  how- 
ever, only  indicates  the  Buhjed  of  the  fable,  the  predicate  appearing  with 
suffipient  clearness  from  the  general  doctrine,  which  may  be  found  by 
abstraction."  ' 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  24$ 

tion,  for  we  are  sure  to  find  all  that  the  general  truths  thus 
arrived  at  may  contain,  in  the  less  general,  which  are  subor- 
dinate to  them,  and  form  the  subject  of  the  parable.  But 
when  we  proceed  to  determine  the  particular  application  of 
these  general  truths  to  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  parable, 
there  are  two  things  to  be  avoided.  First,  we  must  not  sup- 
pose that  there  is  any  necessary  correspondence  between  the 
particular  idea  conveyed  by  the  narration,  and  the  thing  which 
the  parable  is  intended  to  signify.  Secondly,  we  must  not  take 
it  for  granted  that  all  the  particulars  distinguishable  in  the 
narration,  answer  to  as  many  particulars  in  the  thing  signi- 
fied* 

We  do  not  deny  that  it  is  possible  that  things  belonging  to 
the  same  class,  may  possess  the  same  attributes  in  common, 
and  thus  agree  in  many  particulars,  as  well  as  in  their  generic 
character.  It  would  even  be  wise,  if  the  natures  of  the  thing 
narrated  and  of  that  signified  would  admit  such  an  agreement, 
to  express  such  predicates  in  the  narration,  as  would  equally 
suit  the  thing  signified.  This  may  be  exemplified  by  the 
parable  of  the  wedding  feast,  (m)  where  the  general  truth  con- 
veyed, when  obtained  from  the  narrative  by  abstraction,  is, 
that  the  rejection  of  repeatedly  proffered  benefits  zoill  afford 
ground  for  heavy  punishment,  and  procure  the  transfer  of  those 
benefits  to  others,  if  they  will  receive  them  as  they  ought.  To 
this  is  subordinate  the  doctrine  which  it  was  the  intention  of 
our  Lord  to  teach,  that  the  contempt  of  the  blessings  of  the 
heavenly  kingdom  by  the  Jews  would  draw  down  upon  them 
heavy  punishment,  and  that  on  the  other  hand,  such  of  the 

(m)  Matt.  xxii.  2.  ss. 


*  [  *^*  Ante  omnia  scopus  cujusque  parabolae  est  considerandus,  et 
non  modo,  quod  huic  adversatur,  sed  etiam,  quod  ad  eum  nihil  confert, 
pro  sensu  loci  alieno  habiendum,  quem  auctor  parabolae  nee  intenderit, 
nee  intendere  potuerit.  Unde  consequens  est,  magis  ad  ostentationem 
ingenii  et  foecundae  imagination  is  facere,  ilias  doctrinas  et  usus,  quae 
ex  omnibus  et  singulis  parabolae  circumstantiis  petuntur,  et  mysteria, 
quae  in  iis  queruntur,  quam  ad  parabolae  interpretationem,  verumque 
et  ^  loquente  intentum  carum  sensura  indagandum  et  declarandum." 
Wkrbnfbm.  Opusc.  u.  362.    Tr.  ] 


ii46  'I%E  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST. 

Gentiles  as  should  prove  worthy,  should  be  admitted  to  the 
enjoyment  of  those  blessings.  In  this  instance,  the  punish- 
ment to  be  inflicted  on  the  Jews  was  of  such  a  kind,  that  it 
would  be  explicitly/  described  in  the  narration,  as  in  v.  7. — 
But  very  often  the  case  is  otherzoise.  So  in  this  same  parable, 
the  general  idea  of  being  not  unworthy  of  a  benefit,  (n)  is  in  the 
narrative  converted  into  the  special  circumstance  of  being 
clothed  in  a  wedding  garment ;  whereas  the  import  of  the 
parable  requires  a  different  special  notion,  that  of  being  goody{o) 
possessing  a  habit  of  mind  adapted  to  the  heavenly  kingdom. 
To  use  another  example :  the  general  idea  of  obedience  to  the 
will  of  another,  is  expressed  in  the  narration  of  the  parable 
of  the  two  sons,  (p)  by  the  particular  action  of  going  into  the 
vineyard  J  which  does  not  at  all  suit  the  thing  signified,  in  which 
it  must  be  changed  to  the  repentance  (fAsravoia),  (^)  productive 
of  obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  which  had  been  preached  by 
John,  (r)  It  would  be  improper,  therefore,  to  conclude  from 
Lu.  xix.  27^  that  on  the  return  of  our  Lord,  {s)  and  his  glorious 
manifestatibn,  {t)  (after  having  suffered  his  kingdom  to  exist 
some  time  in  comparative  obscurity,  for  the  purpose  of  afford- 
ing an  opportunity  to  its  enemies  to  display  their  fury,  (m)  and 
to  his  servants  to  show  their  faithfulness,)  {v)  his  enemies 
should  be  slain,  although  that  punishment  is  named  in  the  nar- 
ration. For  it  does  not  follow  that  the  punishment  to  be 
inflicted  on  the  enemies  signified  in  v.  14  and  27,  now  for  the 
most  part  dead,  must  be  the  same  as  that  said  to  be  inflicted 
on  the  enemies  of  the  nobleman  (eu/svrig)  whose  history  is  re- 
counted in  the  narrative.*^     In  like  manner,  v.  17,  19,  afford 

(71)  Co.i>p.  V.  8.  (0)  V.  10.  (p)  Matt.  xxi.  29. 

(g)  V.  33.  (r)  iii.  2.  (s)  v.  15. 

(0  V.  11.  (w)  V.  14.  (v)  V.  13.  15.  ss. 


*  1  For  the  same  reason  a  distinction  must  be  made  between  the 
form  of  the  sentence  of  the  king  in  Matt,  xviii.  34.  and  the  form  of 
the  divine  judgment,  and  no  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  expression 
CArxnreu,  or  on  the  other  ••{  tk*.  From  the  special  sentence  of  the 
king  against  this  merciless  servant,  that  he  should  be  delivered  to  the 
tormentors  '  until  the  payment  of  his  debt,''  vre  are  merely  to  collect 
fhejg'fnerdf  idea,  that  the  king  refused,  to  forgive  the  debt  due  him  by  his 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  347 

no  proof  that  the  faithful  servants  of  Christ  shall  be  appointed, 
some  to  the  government  of  ten  cities^  some  to  that  of  five. 
For  this  particular  method  of  reward,  accommodated  to  the 
worldly  nature  of  the  fictitious  history,  may  only  signify  in 
general,  that  a  reward  proportioned  to  the  degree  of  fidelity 
will  be  given,  and  more  particularly,  that  each  should  receive 
employment  and  enjoy  felicity  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in 
proportion  to  his  faithfulness,  (w) 

With  relation  to  the  second  rule  above  given,  (x)  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  it  may  happen  that  the  particulars  given  in  the 
protasis,  or  similitude,  may  correspond  to  as  many  in  the 
thing  signified.  It  is,  for  instance,  altogether  probable  that 
the  parable  of  the  wedding  feast  (y)  not  only  expresses  the 
general  idea  of  repeated  invitations  to  the  Jews  to  partake  of 
the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  also  inore  particu- 
larly distinguishes  two  *^  distinct  times  of  offering,  one,  {z)  that 
in  which  the  Jews  were  called  by  the  prophets,  the  other,  {a) 
that  in  which,  on  the  nearer  approach  of  the  heavenly  king- 
dom, (6)  the  call  was  repeated  by  John,  and  by  Christ  and  his 

(w)  Mat.  \xt.  21.  23.  (x)  p.  245.  (3^)  Mall.  xxti.  S.  ss. 

(z)  V.3.  (a)  V.  4.  (6)  iii.  2.  iv.  17. 


unforgiring  servant,  and  that  in  like  manner  God  will  not  jorgive  the 
sins  of  those  who  show  no  mercy  to  their  fellow  men  (comp.  vi.  15.). 
The  same  remark  applies  to  a  parable  of  another  class  (note  21),  in 
Mat.  V.  25.  s.  where  the  particulars  in  the  narration,  of  the  officer  des- 
patched to  seize  the  debtor,  and  of  the  duration  of  the  imprisonment  un- 
iil  the  entire  payment,  relate  only  to  the  human  judgment,  which  is  an 
image  of  the  divine. 

*a  The  word  «cs/c^»^«»«c,  v.  3,  does  not  necessarily  prove  b.  prior  in- 
vitation, as,  according  to  Hebrew  usage  (see  Obss.  ad  Anal,  et  Synt. 
Heb.  p.  135,"  and  add  i  Pet.  i.  13.  11.  Pet.  iii.  11.  comp.  v.  10,)  it  may 
indicate  the  persons  to  be  invited,  that  is,  the  guests  generally.  Comp. 
Krebsii  Obss.  Flavianas  ad  Mat.  xxii.  3. 


*  C  The  author  has  there  shown  by  a  multitude  of  examples  (pp.  133. 
ss.)  that  the  Hebrew  participles  Benoni  and  Paoul  are  used  indifferently 
to  express  the  past,  the  present,  and  the  future.  Among  other  instances, 
he  gives  mna^»  vastanda,  Ps.  cxxxvii.  8.  and  -jSlj,  qui  nascetur,  Fs 
xxii.  32.  comp.  Ixxviii.  6.      Tr.  1 


^ 


THE  PARABLEJi  OF  CHRIST. 


apostles.  So,  too,  the  invitation  by  the  prophets  seems  to  be 
distinguished  from  that  given  by  Chriat  in  Lu.  xiv.  16.  s.  And 
as  this  last  parable  was  spoken  before  the  Pharisees,  (r)  ^  to 
whom  our  Lord  on  another  occasion,  making  use  of  a  simi- 
lar {(l)  parable,  [e)  had  preferred  both  the  publicans  and  har- 
lots (/)  dwelling  among  them,^*  and  the  heathen ;  {g)  it  is 
very  probable  that  Lu.  xiv.  21,  23,  is  intended  to  distinguish 
the  iiivitation  given  to  the  publicans  and  heathen, — But  it  is  to 
be  maintained  that  it  may  also  happen  otherwise  in  this  respect ; 
lest  we  be  led  to  seek  for  some  particular  signification  for  every 
particular  in  the  protasis  or  similitude  even  when  it  does  not  ^ 
spontaneously  present  itself,*  and  so  fall  into  forced,  or  rash 
and  absurd  interpretations. 

In  the  Jirst  place,  then,  it  is  to  be  assumed,  that  the  general 
enunciation  may,  agreeably  to  Hebrew  usage,  be  distributed  into 
fewer  or  more  particidar  or  integral  parts.*^  t     So  in  Lu.  xx, 

(c)  Lu.  xiv.  1.  ((2)  {.  XIII.  (e)  Mat.  xxii. 

/;  Mat.  xxi.  31.  8.  (g-    Mat.  xxi.  43. 


4  3  It  was  addressed  to  one  of  them  in  particular  (v.  16),  in  whom  the 
recollection  of  the  resurrection  to  happiness,  which  was  an  article  of  be- 
lief among  the  Pharisees,  had  excite^  a  desire  of  the  blessings  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  (v.  14.  ss.),  but  the  love  of  worldly  things  (comp. 
xvi.  14.  lo.  xii.  42.  s.)  seems  to  have  hindered  him  from  embracing  the 
doctrine  of  Christ.  This  circumstance  shows  the  wisdom  of  our  Lord, 
in  making  no  mention  in  this  place  (comp.  Mat.  xxii.  6.)  of  open  hatred 
against  himself,  from  which  this  comparatively  well  disposed  Pharisee 
seems  to  have  been  free,  but  confining  his  reproof  to  the  immoderate  love 
of  wordly  goods,  Lu.  xiv.  18 — 20. 

4  4   Comp.  Tus  noKtmc,  Lu.  xiv.  21. 

*  C  'O"  Xi**  TTXvra  Tcl  it  ?r<ig*CeXat7c  k«t«  M^ifn'%^it^yd^ta^^oLt  ct'xxci 
tor  C'KiTTot  fict^ivrAS  t*  h  auvtri^n  ruroi  3"{fjriff3"*/,  5  fj.nS'if  jroKV- 
jT^etyfAoiin  irt^etni^u.    Chrysost.  Horn.  Ixiv.  in  Matth.  ] 

*s  See  Num.  vii.  12.  ss,  ix.  17.  ss.  Rev.  vii.  4.  ss.  Mar.  xii.  20.  ss. 
Lu.  XX.  29.  ss. 

t  [  So  in  the  fable  of  Jotham,  the  disinclination  of  persons  who  by 
their  endowments  are  best  qualified  for  the  office  of  governing  (Ju.  ix. 
9.  11.  13,)  to  undertake  that  office,  is  represented  under  the  general 
similitude  of  a  tree  valuable  for  its  usefulness  {v.  9.  11.  13,)  refusing  the 
government  of  the  other  trees.  But  to  give  a  more  vivid  idea  of  the 
superiority  of  their  claims^  and  to  increase  the  evidence  of  a  general 
disposition  to  decline  the  office  by  the  introduction  of  a  reptaled  refusal, 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  ^£4^ 

10 — 12,  we  are  not  to  seek  for  three  prophets,  who  may  have 
exercised  their  commissions  in  the  order  given,  and  suffered 
the  insults  ascribed  to  the  several  servants.  For  Matthew, 
c.  xxi.  34 — 36,  and  Mark,  c.  xii.  2 — 5,  expressly  add,  that 
there  were  many  others  sent,  and  even  as  to  the  three  who 
are  mentioned,  those  evangelists  do  ^o  not  entirely  agree 
with  each  other  or  with  St.  Luke,  in  their  accounts  of  the 
treatment  received  by  them,  and  the  order  in  which  they 
were  sent.  The  ojjject  of  our  Lord  was  merely  to  inform  uy, 
that  many  servants  having  been  repeatedly  sent,  were  received 
with  various  insults  and  harsh  treatment.  This  general  de- 
claration admitting  of  division  into  many  of  a  more  special 
nature,  some  of  these,  of  any  of  the  different  kinds,  might  be 
selected  for  the  sake  of  illustration,  {h)  Nor  is  it  any  more 
necessary  to  be  at  pains  to^a;  the  definite  periods  of  time  ^  at 
which  men  are  represented  as  divinely  called,  in  the  parable 
of  the  labourers,  (i)  and  even  the  words  of  the  narration  will 
bear  this  general  signification,  that  some  were  sent  earlier^ 
some  later,  into  the  vineyard  by  its  master. 

Secondly,  as  one  great  use  of  parables  is  to  assist  in  afford- 
ing a  vivid  knowledge  of  what  they  teach,  {k)  it  is  the  more 

(A)  Comp.  Lu.  xiv.  18  —20.  xvi.  5—7.  (?)  Malt.  xx.  2—6.  {k)  \.  rx. 


three  several  offers  to  particular  trees  are  specified.  That  the  particular 
application  of  the  offers  of  the  trees  to  the  olive,  the  fig,  and  the  vine,  to 
distinct  and  unsuccessful  offers  of  the  crown  to  Othniel,  Deborah,  and 
Gideon,  which  has  been  made  by  some  (Saurin,  Disc.  Hist,  iii,  405,) 
could  not  have  been  in  the  mind  of  Jotham,  is  proved  by  his  confining 
his  application  (r.  16.  ss.)  to  the  choice  of  Abimelech,  and  the  injury 
done  thereby  to  the  house  of  Gideon ;  not  to  mention  the  far-fetched  re- 
semblance between  the  several  particulars  in  the  narrative  and  those 
supposed  to  belong  to  its  application.      Tr.  ] 

4  6  The  variety,  and  uncertain  and  precarious  nature,  of  the  interpre. 
tations  which  have  arisen  out  of  an  attempt  to  do  this,  will  be  very  evi- 
dent to  any  one  who  compares  Theophylact  (Comm.  in  Matt,  xx.) 
with  Jerome  (in  loc.)  or  consults  Petersen's  work  entitled:  das 
Geheimniss  von  den  Arbeitern  in  Weinberge  ;*  c.  vi. 


*  [  The  Mystery  of  the , Labourers  in  the  Vineyard.  ] 

3^ 


250  THE  PARABLES  OP   CHRIST. 

proper  in  such  narrations  to  substitute  for  generals,  or  (conjoin 
with  them,  particulars  which  may  contribute  to  bring  the  mat- 
ter as  it  were  before  the  eyes.  For  although  in  this  way  the 
several  particulars  will  not  have  each  its  peculiar  signification  ; 
yet  the  thing  expressed  by  them  conjointly,  or  by  such  parti- 
culars in  connexion  with  generals,  will  be  more  clearly  and 
strongly  represented  to  the  mind  than  it  would  be  in  any 
other  way.  Thus  the  expression  *  my  oxen  and  my  fatlings 
are  killed,*  in  Matt.  xxii.  4,  means  nothing  more  {I)  than  the 
phrase  which  immediately  follows,  'all  things  are  ready;' 
but  it  conveys  that  meaning  with  more  force.  The  words  in 
the  parable  of  the  prodigal,  (m)  *  I  have  sinned  against  God  ' 
have  no  signification  other  than  that  conveyed  by  the  expres- 
sion *  I  have  sinned  against  thee,'  as  the  father  himself  is 
there  an  image  of  God.  But  as  they  are  well  adapted  to  the 
human  father  and  son  to  whom  the  narrative  relates,  they 
serve  to  express  a  deep  sense  of  sin  much  better  than  the 
mere  acknowledgment  *  I  have  sinned  against  thee,'  which  in 
that  case  would  not  sufficiently  convey  the  idea  of  a  lively 
sense  of  sin  in  the  returning  prodigal. — The  particulars  men- 
tioned in  Matt.  xxi.  33,  express  nothing  more  (w)  than  that  the 
vineyard,  when  planted,  was  furnished  with  every  necessary, 
so  that  there  was  nothing  wanting.  But  although  neither  the 
hedge,  nor  the  tower,  nor  the  press,  have  ^uy  particular  sig- 
nification, yet  the  introduction  of  these  circumstances  adds 
much  force  to  the  representation,  that  God  had  omitted  no- 
thing to  effect  the  salvation  of  the  Jews,  and  yet  neither  the 
prophets  nor  Christ  himself  had  found  any  fruits  (o)  worthy 
of  such  extraordinary  care,  in  that  people,  whose  chiefs  were 
so  far  from  aiding  in  the  counsels  of  the  divine  Providence, 
that  they  rather  sought  only  to  increase  their  own  enjoyments, 
by  obtaining  offices  for  themselves,  {p) — In  Lu.  xv.  20.  22 — 
24,  too,  who  would  wish  to  deprive  the  admirable  narrative 
of  the  particulars  which  so  strikingly  represent  the  parental 
tenderness  and  joy,  notwithstanding  that  the  ring,  the  calf, 
&;c.,  cannot  be  said  to  have  any  signification  in  themselves, 

(I)  Comp.  Lu.  siv- 17.        (m)  Lu.  xv.  18.  21.        (n)  Comp.  Isa.  v.  2.  with  v.  4 
(o)  V,  43.  (p)  Comp.  Jo.  li.  48, 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  "'251 

but  merely,  taken  altogether,  have  the  same^'  meaning  that  a 
general  mention  of  great  tenderness  and  extraordinary  plea- 
sure received  from  the  safety  of  the  son,  would  have  convey- 
ed, although  with  less  significancy  ;  viz.  the  great  mercy  of 
God  towards  sinners,  his  pleasure  in  their  conversion,  and 
the  great  benefits  by  which  he  is  accustomed  to  declare  that 
pleasure. 


§.  XV. 

But,  as  there  are  many  particulars  in  the  narration,(q)  which 
do  not  apply  to  the  thing  signified ;  so,  the  narration  may  also 
have  other  parts  which  must  not  be  insisted  on  by  those  who 
institute  a  comparison  (/•)  between  the  object  and  the  nar- 
rative, or  similitudes^      We  will  readily  grant  to  Peter- 

(5)$.  XIV.  (r)§.  XII. 


*  7  So  our  Lord  himself,  in  Matt,  xviii.  33,  expresses  by  the  single 
gtneral  term  ;^^atig«r,  whathe  had  elsewhere,  by  the  introduction  oi par- 
ticulars brought  as  it  were  before  the  eyes,Lu.  xv.  5,  6.  Even  in  the  lat- 
ter passage,  in  the  KTro^oats  (v.  7,)  he  substitutes  the  general  word  ;t*§*"' 
for  all  the  particular  signs  of  great  joy  which  he  had  previously  recapi- 
tulated. 

*  8  This  same  rule  is  given,  with  relation  to  parables  or  (comp.  note 
15,)  fables,  generally,  by  Eustathius  (ix.  B'.  A',  p.  177.  856.)  among 
the  ancients,  and  among  the  moderns  by  Sulzer,  Allg.  Theorie  der 
schoenen  Kuenste,  P.  1.  p.  107.     With  respect  to  the  parables  of  Christ 
in  particular,  it  is  confirmed  by  Tertulliabt,  as  quoted  by  Semler, 
Antt.  Hermeneut.  ex  Tertall.  Spec.  1.  p.  27.,  by  Chrysostom,  Comm 
in  Matt.  xx.  1.  ss.,  and  by  other  fathers,  cited  by  Suicer,  Thesaur 
Eccles.  Tom.  11.  p.  570.     So  also  Lother,  Postil.  in  Evang.  Dom 
Septuagv  0pp.  T,  xiii.  p.  387 ;  Bccer,  Enarrat.  in  Matth.  xx.  xxii.  xxv 
Lu.  xvi.  (fol.  154.  161.  178.  215);  Flacius,  p.  40;  Glassius,  p.  489 
Cahxtds,  p.  186.  5. ;  Wollius,  Herm.  Nov.  Foed.  p.  131.  ss. ;  Turre 
Tuc,  p.  262.  ss.,  148. ;  Ernesti,  Inst.  Interp.  P.  i.  S.  u.  c.  iv.  extr. ;  and 
many  others.      Even  Cocceius  himself  does  not  deny  that  the  literal 
sense  of  the  parables  may  be  found  without  a  nice  accommodation  of 
each,  and  every  circumstance  in  the  narrative  to  the  object  of  the  para- 
ble ;  although  he  thinks  that  those  circumstances  may  receive  a  mystic 
and  prophetic  sense.     Such  is  his  declaration  (Schol.  in  Luc  xv.  0pp. 
Tom.  IV.  54.)  *  that  the  misery  of  the  prodigal  son,  and  the  indignation  of 
Jhis  elder  brother,  which  are  so  minutely  described,  are  intended,  perhaps. 


^52  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

SEN^^that  nothing  ,^is  ,  introduced  into  the  narroiion  without 
seme  reason  ;  but  that  the  cause  why  this  or  that  circumstance 
is  related,  must  necessarily  exist  in  its  agreement  with  the  sub- 
ject, we  deny.  Yet  we  would  not  have  any  thing  considered 
as  merely  ornamental,  for  though  it  is  allowable  in  poetry  to 
to  make  use  of  circumstantial  narrative  merely  for  the  pur- 
pose of  giving  pleasure,  yet  in  fables,  the  object  of  which  is  to 
assist  the  acquisition  of  intuitive  knowledge  of  the  truth,  the 
only  ornament  ought  to  consist  in  brevity  and  simplicity ^^  as 
the  careful  exclusion  of  every  thing  foreign  to  the  subject, 
however  agreeable  in  other  respects,  tends  greatly  to  secure 
the  accomplishment  of  their  object,  and  a  ready  recollection  (s) 
of  the  fables  themselves.  There  can,  therefore,  be  no  adequate 
reason  assigned  for  the  use  of  any  thing  that  is  not  serviceable 
in  the  parabolic  illustration  of  doctrine.  But  then  the  para- 
bolic illustration  of  doctrine  requires,  not  only  that  the  doc- 
trine be  illustrated,  but  also  that  it  be  illustrated  by  a  parable. 
It  was  not  our  Lord's  intention  in  his  parables  to  afford  an 
illustration  of  his  teaching  of  any  kind  whatever,  but  to  illus- 
trate it  by  parables."^     Any  thing,  therefore,  required  by  the 

(5)   5.  IX. 


for  a  description  of  the  misery  of  those  who  wallow  in  sin,  and/or  an  illus- 
(ration  of  the  affection  of  the  father  (comp.  below,  §.  xvni.  extr.)  ;  yet 
perhaps  they  also  contain  a  mystical  signification,  which  may  be  ascer- 
tained from  oiher  propliecies.''  Bnt  that  Christ  had  in  view,  beside  the 
proper  signification  of  the  parable,  other  future  events,  is  entirely  with- 
out proof  in  Scripture,  unless  we  admit  as  proof  the  existence  of  parts  of 
the  narration  to  which  there  are  no  correspondent  particulars  in  the  thing 
signified.  The  inadmissibility  of  this  will  appear  when  we  shall  have 
shown,  as  we  propose  to  do,  that  there  were  sufficient  reasons  why  our 
Lord  should  interweave  such  parts  in  the  narration,  even  though  he  did 
not  intend  to  represent  by  thena  any  thing  similar  either  in  the  subject  pro- 
perly signified,  or,  in  something  else  to  be  mystically  understood.  Nor 
is  any  great  credit  done  to  this  hypothesis  by  the  precarious  interpreta- 
tions of  CoccEius  (Disp.  Sel.  xxxv.  §.  i.p.  89.  Opp.  T.  VI.)  and  his  dis- 
ciples,  specimens  of  which  are  given  by  Pfaff,  in  the  Dissertation 
already  cited,  p.  16.  ss.,  where  that  author  also  enumerates  the  prin- 
cipal defenders  of  this  opinion,  p.  21. 

*o  Ubi  supra,  p.  123,  and  in  his  work:  die  Gleichnisse  des  Hem, 
«tc.  p.  285.  338.  362.  s.  393.  507, 746. 

5  »  See  Lessing's  Fourth  Dissertation  ;  ubi  supra. 

*  £  "  IJcet  non  existimemus,  qnamlibet  parabolae  circumstantiam 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  253 

nature  of  a  parable,  was  necessary,  although  devoid  of  any- 
particular  correspondence  with  the  subject  of  the  parable.* 

Now  a  parable  is  a  narrative  bearing  the  resemblance  of 
truth,  (t) 


§.  XVI. 

In  the/r5(  place,  then,  things  which,  so  far  as  relates  to  the 
signification  of  the  parable  only,  might  have  been  omitted, 
are  sometimes  necessary  to  give  the  narrative  designed  to 
convey  instruction  the  appearance  of  a  real  history,  and 
to  render  it  agreeable  to  the  ordinary  course  of  things.  For 
example,  the  mention  of  the  man  who  sowed  the  grain  of 
mustard  seed  (w)  was  altogether  unnecessary,  taking  into  con- 
sideration only  the  nature  of  the  thing  signified.  (i>)  But, 
without  it,  the  comparison  would  have  been  a  parable  in  the 
strictest  sense,  (w)  In  order  to  change  this  into  the  kind  (x) 
of  which  alone  our  Lord  made  use,  {y)  it  was  necessary  to 
introduce  a  particular  man  as  having  sowed  the  seed,  in  place 
of  the  general  statement  of  its  being  sown.  The  same  prin» 
ciple  applies  to  the  introduction  of  the  woman  in  Matt.  xiii. 
33,  which  is  merely  for  the  purpose  of  reducing  an  event 
which  daily  occurred  to  women  making  bread,  to  a  singh 
definite  example.  So  again  in  Lu.  xvi.  28,  it  was  much 
better  to  represent  the  rich  man  as  speaking  of  a  certain  num- 
ber of  brothers,  than  to  make  him  speak  of  them  in  a  general. 

(t)  §.  XI.  (U)  Matl.  xiii.  31.  (v)  Comp.  Mar.  iv.  31. 

(w)  §.  I.  (x)  b.  IV.  (y)  §.  u. 


peculiarem  habere  significationem,  illas  propterea  non  vanas  et  inatilcs 
esse  credimus;  faciunt  enim  ad  parabolarum  non  modo  elegantiam, 
sed  ad  earutn  etiam  naiuram,  quae  haec  est ;  ut  narrentur  cum  quibus- 
dam  circumstantiis,  alioquin  enim  narrationum  historicarum  speciem 
non  haberent."     Werknfels.  Opusc.  ii.  352.      Tr.  ] 

*  [  "  Non  seulement  il  n'est  pas  n6cessaire  que  chacun  de  leurs 
membres  ait  une  veu  particuli^re,  qui  se  rapporte  directeraent  au  but  de 
celui  qui  la  propose ;  il  faut  m^me  que  ce  but  soit  en  quelque  sort  cache 
sous  des  images  dtrangeres,  destinies  a  I'enveloper."  Saurin  Disc.  His» 
tor.  Tom.  in.  p.  405.  ».     Tr.  ]  '     ^ 


^04  TH£  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

}:t^  ..   "     ■■•J'  "   '•  ■  -^'.v  .■>     ■-     ■..  •      r 

way,  as  if  he  had  been  ignorant  of  their  number.    In  this 
case,  it  is  unnecessary  to  inquire  the  reason  for  choosing  the 
number /re.     As  it  suited  the  historical  form  of  the  parable 
best  to  speak  of  a  definite  number,  all  that  was  needful  was, 
to  fix  some   certain  number  not  in  itself  incredible,   and 
in  doing  this,  it  mattered  not  which  might  be  selected,  there 
being  no  more  reason  for  the  choice  of  Jive  than  for  that  of 
any  other  number,  say,  for  instance, /owr.     The  ^ame  remark 
may  be  made  of  the  use  of  the  number  ten  in  Lu.  xix.  13. 
and  Matt.  xxv.  1.,  where  it  only  occurs  because,  as  in  every 
single  event,  the  number  concerned  in  it,  e.  g,  of  human 
agents,  is  necessarily  definite,  the  case  must  be  the  same  in 
z.  fictitious  history.     Our  Lord,  therefore,  intending  to  fix  the 
number  of  the  talents,  and  of  the  virgins,  was  unable  in  that 
respect  to  have  any  reference  to  the  thing  signified  in  the 
parable,  and  so  took  the  first  that  occurred,  e,  g,  that,  which 
it  was  usual  to  employ  in  expressing  generally  an  indefinite 
number,  (z)  of,  perhaps,  was  commonly  preferred  in  different 
kinds  of  business.^*    As  the  virgins  in  Matt,  xxv.  1.  were  to 
be  distinguished  into  two  sorts,  the  whole  number,  ten,  was 
divided  into  two  smaller  numbers.     These  were  made  equal, 
because  that  method  of  division  is  the  most  simple  possible, 
not  with  any  intention  to  signify  that  the  number  of  watchful 
Christians  and  that  of  persons  of  the  opposite  description  will 
be  equal ;  unless  we  choose  to  believe  that  c.  xxi.  28.  ss.  proves 
the  equality  of  numbers  of  both  classes,  or  to  infer  from  c, 
xxv.  15,  that  the  number  of  faithful  Christians  will  be  greater 
than  that  of  the  wicked,  because  two  faithful  servants  are  men- 
tioned, while  but  one  is  slothful.^^ — In  the  parable  of  the  lea- 

(2)  Dan.  i.  20.    Neh.  iv.  6. 


5 »  Comp.  LiGHTFOOT,  Hor.  Heb.  in  Matth.  xxv.  1.;  and  RHEirreRDii 
Opera  Philologica,  p.  729.  s. 

5  2  There  was,  it  is  true,  a  weighty  reason  for  the  mention  of  two 
faithful  servants ;  but  this  related,  not  to  the  number  of  faithful  and 
careless  Christians,  but  to  the  proportion  of  the  goods  entrusted  to  the 
faithful  servants  respectively,  with  the  increase  made  by  them.  For  if 
no  mention  had  been  made  of  a  second  servant  (v.  17,;  it  could  not  have 
been  learned  from  the  parable  that  most  will  be  expected  from  him  to 
whom  mo'st  has  been  entrusted  (v.  16,  comp.  v,  17,)  and  must  be  ren- 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  255 

ven  {a)  the  narrative  is  rendered  much  more  neat  and  pro- 
bable by  the  mention  of  the  particular  number  of  three  mea- 
sures of  the  meal,  as  some  definite  number  must  certainly  have 
been  employed  in  a  real  event  of  that  kind,  (b)     This  alone 
was  a  sufficient  reason  why  Christ,  when  intending  to  frame 
a  fictitious  narrative  on  the  subject,  should  mention  a  particu- 
lar number  of  measures  of  meal,  (perhaps  the  number  most 
commonly  used,)  although  there  is  no  discoverable  relation 
between  the  object  of  the  parable  and  the  number  three.^ — 
For  similar  reasons  we  dare  not  attach  any  particular  import- 
ance to  the  mention  of  three  years  in  Lu.  xiii.  7,  especially  as 
the  Jews  were  allowed  not  merely  the  third  year  (c)  of  the 
ministry  of  Jesus,  but  also  several  others  in  addition,  for  the 
purpose  of  hearing  the  preached  gospel,  and  bringing  forth 
corresponding  fruits.     It  seems  rather  to  convey  this  general 
truth,  that  God,  who  for  a  long  while  {d)  had  discovered  In 
them  no  fruits  worthy  of  the  excellent  instructions  they  had 
received,  would  yet  grant  to  the  Jewish  nation  a  period,  short 
indeed,  but  well  suppHed  with  the  means  and  opportunities  of 
improvements,  (e)  after  the  expiration  of  which  without  any 
great  conversion  of  the  people,  certain  destruction  would  be- 
fal  their  country. 

(a)  Matt.  xiii.  33.    Lu.  xiii.  21.  (b)  So  Gen.  xviii.  6. 

(c)  Comp.  V.  8.  id)  Comp.  Matt.  xxi.  34.  ss. 

(«)  Lu.  xiii.  8.  comp.  xix.  44.  xxiv.  47.    Ac.  iii.  19.  ss. 


dered,  if  he  wishes  to  obtain  the  credit  of  being  faithful  (v.  21,)  and  to 
retain  his  place  (v.  28.  s.).  So  in  Lu.  xix.  the  express  introduction  of 
the  other  servant  {v.  18.  s)  was  necessary,  as  without  it  we  could  not 
have  known  that  the  extent  of  reward  could  be  proportioned  to  the  de- 
gree offatthfidness,  which  now  appears  from  a  comparison  of  the  services 
of  each  servant  (v.  16.  18,)  with  his  respective  reward  {v.  17. 19. 24.  ss.), 
— So  in  other  places,  as  in  Lu.  vii.  41,  comp.  v.  43.  and  in  Matt,  xviii. 
24. 28.  comp.  v  32.  the  mulual  relations  of  the  numbers  introduced  are 
of  great  importance. 

5  3  Interpreters,  indeed,  have  invented  several.  But  as  these  diflFer 
from  each  other,  and  each  has  as  much  right  to  credence  as  the  rest, 
their  variety  itself  gives  rise  to  suspicion.    Examples  may  be  found  in 

the  work  of  Petersen;  Gleichnisse  des  Hern.  p.  260.  ^although  the 

number  might  easily  be  enlarged. 


2;56  THE  PARABLES  OV  CHRIST- 


§.  XVII. 


In  the  second  place,  the  narration  ought  to  be  apt  and  con^ 
sistmt  in  all  its  parts.  If  it  were  otherwise,  it  would  not 
please,  and  therefore  would  excite  no  desire  \o  learn ;  (/) 
and  as  it  would  be  in  many  respects  defective,  it  would  da 
little  for  the  general  recommendation  of  the  doctrine,  the  intui- 
tive knowledge  and  easy  recollection  of  which  it  was  designed 
to  aid  :  (g)  least  of  all  would  it  wear  the  gmh  of  probability,  {h) 

The  subjects  of  the  narration,  therefore,  must  be  such,  that 
the  predicates  necessary  to  express  the  nature  of  the  subject 
of  the  parable,  may  suit  them.  Hence  it  may  happen  that 
a  thing  may  be  taken  for  the  subject  of  the  protasis,  or 
fictitious  historj^  although  it  bear  no  close  resemblance  to 
the  subject  of  the  apodosis,  or  truth  conveyed,^  on  account 
of  the  agreement  of  its  predicates  wtth  those  of  the  apo-- 
dosis.  Of  this  the  parable  of  the  wise  and  fooHsh  virgins 
may  serve  as  an  example.  Our  Saviour,  designing  to  re- 
prove the  folly  of  temporary  Christians,  {%)  who  would  be 
ready  to  accompany  him  (A:)  to  the  regions  of  eternal  happi- 
ness, if  his  advent  were  to  be  immediate,  but  neglected  to 
lay  a  solid  foundation  of  faith  and  piety,  capable  of  enduring 
a  longer  period,^'  represented  in  a  parable  a  number  of  per-  - 

(0  Coinp.  Lu.  viii.  13.  (A)  Matt.  xxv.  13. 


5  4  Where  the  predicates  do  not  absolutely  require  any  particular 
subject  as  the  most  suitable,  that  would  doubtless  be  preferred  which 
may  be  most  significant.  So  what  is  related  in  Lu.  x.  33.  ss.  might  be 
attributed  to  others  as  well  as  to  the  Samaritan,  but  the  latter.is  design- 
edly introduced.     See  note  39. 

SB  The  principal  cause  assigned  (v.  13,)  for  watchfulness  lest  our 
Lord  at  his  return  may  find  us  unprepared,  (v.  10,)  is  the  ignorance  of 
the  time  when  that  return  will  take  place,  and  the  possibility  that  it  may 
be  farther  oiFthan  we  anticipate  (v.  5).  We  are  therefore  to  take  care, 
that  in  case  we  be  found  alive,  we  may  be  ready,  not  having  lost  our 
faith  and  Christian  virtue ;  and  that  if  he  is  to  find  us  dead,  the  uncertain 
time  of  death,  which,  as  it  finds  us,  will  leave  us  for  the  judge  (n.  Cor. 
V.  10.  n.  Tim.  iv.  7.  s.)  may  not  have  surprized  us  while  unprepared, 
and  slackened  in  our  zeal  by  the  lapse  of  time 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  $SS 

sons  pin3paring  to  go  out  by  uiglit  and  meet  a  bridegroom, 
but  not  reflecting  on  the  possibility  that  his  conning  might  be 
delayed,  and  neglecting  to  provide  themselves  \*^ith  a  sufficient 
supply  of  oil,  to  feed  their  lamps,  which  in  consequence,  go 
out,  and  they,  while  gone  to  purchase  oil,  are  excluded  fronj 
the  wedding.  In  this  case,  it  is  evident,  a  bride,  who  was 
usually  brought  from  her  father's  house  by  the  bridegroom 
himself,  and  would  neither  come  late,  nor  be  excluded  from 
the  wedding,  would  not  be  a  suitable  object  to  represent  the 
procrastinating  Christians  in  question,  as  the  predicates  ne- 
cessary to  express  their  character,  would  not  apply  to  her  : 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  they  would  perfectly  suit  the  virgins 
who  were  wont  to  go  forth  to  meet  the  bridegroom,  whom 
it  was  proper,  for  that  reason,  to  make  the  subject  of  the  nar- 
rative. A  suflicient  reason  for  the  choice  of  the  subject,  then, 
being  discoverable  in  its  predicates,  which  certainly  have 
their  proper  significations,  no  other  w^as  needed,  nor  can  the 
use  of  this  image  afford  any  ground  for  the  inquiry,  in  what 
the  difference  between  the  Christians  whom  it  designates, 
and  those  who  are  elsewhere  called  the  bride  of  Christ,  con- 
sists.— To  make  use  of  another  example,  in  Matt.  xiii.  44,  the 
reason  why  the  treasure  is  represented  as  hidden  in  the  field, 
appears  to  be,  that  if  it  had  been  represented  as  exposed,  it 
would  either  have  belonged  to  no  one,  and  so  have  been  ob- 
tainable without  expense,  which  would  not  have  suited  the  de- 
sign of  our  Lord  in  his  parable ;  or,  it  must  have  been  the  sub- 
ject of  a  direct  purchase,  in  w^hich  case  this  similitude  would 
differ  in  no  respect  frc«n  the  other  of  the  pearl,  (/)  as  that  is  a 
species  of  merchantable  treasure.  Supposing  it,  then,  to  have 
been  the  design  of  our  Lord  to  convey  the  same  instruction  in  a 
twofold  mgmner,^  he  would  not  have  done  otherwise  than  re- 

(Z)  V.  45.  s. 


5  8  There  could  be  no  objection  to  thus  illiistrathig  the  sarwie  truth  by 
means  of  several  parables,  as  the  object  of  parabolic  instruction  is  to 
convey  a  more  vivid  knowledge  of  the  subject  than  could  be  otherwise 
obtained  (^.  IX.),  and  variety  of  illustration  will  more  effectually  ac 

38 


25S 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST. 


present  the  treasure  to  be  bought,  as  hidden.^  It  follows  of 
course  that  nothing  can  be  necessarily  inferred  from  the  con- 
cealment of  the  treasure  as  to  any  occult  state  of  the  heavenly 
kingdom.! 


complish  that  veiy  end.  In  Matt.  xiii.  44,  for  instance,  we  learn,  it  is 
true,  that  the  worth  of  the  kingdom  is  so  great  as  to  deserve  our  efforts 
to  obtain  it,  in  preference  to  all  other  matters ;  and  this  is  the  more 
forcibly  pourtrayed  by  the  significant  manner  in  which  we  are  informed 
of  the  value  of  the  treasure,  it  being  represented  as  sufficient  to  warrant 
the  purchase  of  the  field  under  the  necessity  of  parting  with  every  other 
possession,  simply  because  it  contained  that  treasure,  the  image  of  the 
heavenly  kingdom.  But  the  reasonableness  of  setting  aside  every  other 
pursuit  in  comparison  with  that  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  still  more 
strongly  felt,  when  in  another  example  (v.  45.  s.)  we  are  reminded  bow 
plainly  accordant  with  common  sense  it  is,  to  acquire  what  is  more 
valuable  by  foregoing  things  of  less  worth.  In  the  same  chapter,  the 
possibility  of  the  great  increase  of  the  kingdom  of  God  from  small  be- 
ginnings, is  more  fully-shown  by  two  examples  of  the  increase  of  little, 
things  (v.  31.  s.  and  33,)  than  it  could  possibly  have  been  by  one. — The 
propriety  of  the  great  pleasure  taken  by  all  good  persons  in  the  conver- 
sion of  sinners  is  held  up  to  view  too  by  our  Lord,  in  Lu.  xv.,  with  the 
more  vividness,  in  proportion  as  he  has  shown,  in  a  manner  adapted 
to  the  common  sense  of  all,  shepherd,  woman,  and  father,*  that  in 
similar  cases  all  are  actuated  by  the  general  principle  of  taking  most 
pleasure  in  the  safety  and  preservation  of  such  things  as  had  previously 
been  thought  in  danger. 

*  [  Another  reason  for  the  insertion  of  this  circumstance  is  given  in 
^.  XVIII.  p.  78.      Tr.  ] 

t  [  In  the  parable  of  the  leaven,  on  the  other  hand,  while  the  actor 
in  the  transaction  represented  (p.  65,)  and  the  particular  quantity  of  the 
meal  (p.  67,)  are  both  unconnected  with  the  signification  of  the  para- 
ble, the  circumstance  of  the  production  of  a  change  in  the  state  of  the 
whole  quantity  of  meal  by  a  little  leaven  hidden  within  it,  is  the  prin- 
cipal point  in  the  protasis.  "  Peculiar  as  this  comparison  is,  none  could 
be  found  which  should  more  justly  characterize  the  nature  of  the  pro- 
gress of  the  gospel.  Not  compelling  proselytes  by  force  of  arms,  as  the 
religion  of  Mohammed  afterwards  ;  but  so  hidden  at  first,  that  we  are 
obliged  to  seek  carefully  for  traces  of  its  growth  in  the  history  of  na- 
tions ;  yet  maintaining  its  place,  and  effecting  its  purpose ;  gradually  meli- 
orating the  laws,  and  changing  the  moral  aspect  of  the  countries  where  it 
it  was  received!  and  insinuating  its  renovating  views  of  God  and  man 


*  [  See  an  excellent  sermon  on  these  three  parables  in  connexion, 
by  Waterland,  Sermons,  Vol.  i.  Serm.  xvr.  p.  170.  ss.  ed.  1776.     Tr.  ] 


IflE  1'ARA6LES  OF  CHRIST.  *259 


§.  XVIII. 

To-  fender  the  narration  apt,  (m)  especial  care  must  be 
taken  in  the  arrangement  and  connexion  of  its  several  parts.^ 
Whenever,  therefore,  it  is  impracticable  to  reduce  the  prin- 
cipal parts  of  the  narration,  on  which  the  knowledge  of  the 
thing  signified  properly  depends,  into  some  certain  and  apt 
order,  without  the  introduction  of  other  parts  having  no  re- 
semblance to  the  thing  signified,  such  adjectitious  parts  may 
with  propriety  be  inserted.*^  Of  this  the  parable  of  the 
tares  (n)  may  serve  as  an  example,  since  Christ  himself,  when 
interpreting  that  parable,  (o)  lays  no  stress  upon  the  questions 
of  the  servants,  (/?)  thus  intimating  that  it  was  not  his  inten- 
tion to  foreshow  by  them  any  wonder  on  the  part  of  the 
apostles  at  the  admission  of  bad  men  into  his  church,  or  any 
attempt  of  theirs  by  prayer  to  obtain  divine  directions  on  the 
subject :  all  occasion  for  such  wonder  he  was  at  that  vefy 
time  removing,  by  the  doctrine  conveyed  in  the  parable  it- 
self {q)  But  there  would  have  been  no  suitable  place  in  the 
narration  for  the  answer  in  which  that  doctrine  is  contained, 
if  previous  mention  had  not  been  made  of  the  notice  of  the 
tares  by  the  servants  and  their  conversation  with  their  mas- 
ter ;  these  incidents  affording  the  occasion  for  that  principal 
part  of  the  narration,  in  v,  26.  s.^^ — Nor  does  the  divine 

(m)  {.  XVII.  («)  Matt.  xiii.  24.  ss.  (o)  tJ.  37.  ss. 

(p)  V.  27.  s.  (j)  V.  29.  s. 


into  the  heart  of  those  with  whom  it  came  in  contact."  Summer,  Evir 
dences,  p.  130.  ed.  Am.,  who  refers  to  Benson,  Hulsean  Lectures,  Disc, 
xi.  Vol.  I.       Tr.  ] 

5  7   C<ymp.  Lessing,  Diss,  i  p.  135.  ss. 

5  8  These  are  of  no  disservice  to  the  more  essential  parts,  as  the  lat- 
ter are  even  brought  more  plainly  into  notice  by  the  obviousness  of  the 
fact  that  the  others  are  subordinate  to  them,  and  invented  and  intec- 
woven  with  them  solely  on  their  account. 

5  9  In  like  manner  the  notice  of  the  murmurs  of  the  labourers  in 
Matt  XX.  11.  s-  is  not  to  be  considered  as  a  prophecy  of  any  disposition 
of  men  in  this  life  to  dispute  against  the  arrangements  of  Proyidence ; 


2i}0  Till:   PARABLES  OF   CHRISl. 

teacher,  in  his  interpretation,  (r)  give  any  warning  to  his 
apostles  and  other  teachers  of  his  rehgion,  to  beware  of  be- 
coming sources  of  evils  in  the  church  through  their  drowsiness 
and  neghgence  of  their  official  duties.  This  rule,  however 
true  and  salutary  in  itself,  is  certainly  not  conveyed  in  the 
parable  in  question,  (5)  since  in  that  it  is  not  the  servanis  oi 
the  master,  (t)  but  men  in  general  that  are  introduced  as 
sleeping,  and  the  reply  of  the  master  to  his  servants  (u)  is  en- 
tirely devoid  of  any  appearance  of  rebuke.  It  was  in  order 
to  introduce  the  declaration  in  v.  29.  s.,  an  essential  part  of 
the  narration,  that  the  tares  are  represented  as  having  been 
sown  without  the  knowledge  of  the  servants,  and  thus,  when 


(.')  V.  '27.  <u)  r.  28,  ss. 


much  less  of  any  conduct  of  theirs  iu  the  life  to  come ;  provoked  in  ei- 
ther case  by  the  Divine  determination  to  reward  with  the  same  benefits 
as  he  will  confer  on  others  (xx.  9.  s.  12,)  and  perhaps  even  more  speedi- 
ly, (v.  S'  16.  xix.  30,)  either  in  this  life  or  in  the  next,  (v.  29,)  such  per- 
sons as,  although  they  may  seem  to  have  done  less  in  his  service,  and 
to  have  been  less  time  devoted  to  it,  nevertheless  possess  a  higher  de- 
gree of  excellence  of  character  (fx^kro/,  v.  16,*)  are  free  from  reliance 
on  their  OAvn  deservings  (comp.  xix.  27.),  and  are  tiioroughly  imbuetl 
•with  a  sense  of  his  free  and  unmerited  favour  towards  them.  On  the 
contrary,  the  only  object  of  the  mention  of  those  murmurs  was,  to  in- 
troduce the  answer  (xx.  13 — 15,)  which  is  the  principal  point  in  con- 
nexion with  the  apodosis,  and  by  declaring  the  supreme  right  of  God  to 
dispense  the  blessings  of  this  life  and  that  to  come  according  to  his  plea- 
sure,  rather  tends  to  prevent  the  occurrence  of  such  murmurs. 


*■  [  Such  a  meaning  is  undoubtedly  attributable  to  iKhtKTos  in  some 
passages  of  the  N.  T.  (See  Schleusner,  in  voce  No.  1.  4;  Wahl, 
No.  2.  a.  b.)  But  in  Matt.  xx.  16,  the  expression  vof^oi  yx^  uat  kxutoi, 
ohiyot  «r«  tK\tKtci  is  certainly  of  similar  import  with  the  same  expression 
as  used  in  xxii.  14.  and  in  this  latter  passage,  no  mere  excellence  of  cha- 
racter, but  separation,  distinction  from  the  great  ftiass,  is  evidently  the 
idea  which  tKhtK^uc  is  intended  to  convey.  The  contrast  is  in  both 
places  between  the  many  who  make  pretensions  to  the  character  of  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  and  the  comparatively /ew  who  really  possess  that  cha- 
racter, and  are  distinguished  by  it  from  the  rest,  in  this  case,  of  the  Jewish 
nation, — in  other  passages  where  the  word  is  used,  of  the  world.  See 
Matt.  xxiy.  22,  34. 31.  and  oomp.  Tit.  i.  1-    J.  Pet.  i.  1.       Tr.-} 


fHE  FARABLLS  OF  CHRIST.  261 

noticed,  (v)  exciting  their  surprize  :  (w)  for  such  a  proceeding, 
the  uight  (a;)  when  men  are  accustomed  to  sleep,  (?/)  would 
be  the  most  appropriate  tinie.  If  the  tares  had  been  repre- 
sented as  sow  n  with  tlie  knowledge  of  the  servants,  it  would 
have  been  their  duty  to  have  hindered  the  enemy  from  doing 
it,  there  would  have  been  no  room  for  their  com[)laint  and  the 
promise  of  extirpation  made  to  them,  {2)  and  the  lenient  re- 
commendation of  patience  by  the  master,  (a)  which  is  of  so 
much  importance  to  the  subject  of  the  parable,  would  have 
been  improper. — The  same  account  may  be  given  of  the  sleep 
in  the  parable  of  the  virgins,  (h)  It  undoubtedly  was  intro- 
duced, not  as  a  defect  in  the  wise  virgins,  who,  on  the  con- 
trary, are  an  example  of  vigilance,  (c)  and  prudent  circum- 
spection ;  (d)  but  on  account  of  its  being  necessary  to  the  or- 
der of  the  narrative*  The  design  of  our  Saviour  in  the  para- 
ble (c)  required  that  the  cause  of  the  exclusion  of  the  foolish 
virgins  should  be,  their  neglect  to  furnish  themselves  with  oil. 
They  would  not  have  been  excluded,  had  they  perceived  the 
approaching  extinction  of  their  lamps  before  the  oil  was  quite 
exhausted.  For  if  the  bridegroom  had  come  early,  the  oil 
that  yet  remained  would  have  been  sufficient  for  their  pur- 
pose ;  or  if  his  coming  had  not  been  more  timely  known,  (f) 
there  w^ould  have  been  an  opportunity  of  purchasing  {g)  a 
fresh  supply.  It  was  therefore  necessary  to  represent  them 
as  having  only  perceived  the  extinction  of  tlieir  lamps  when 
the  oil  was  already  exhausted,  and  the  bridegroom  near  at 
hand.  It  was  also  necessary  to  suppose  the  wise  virgins  to 
have  slept  as  well  as  the  others,  lest  it  might  have  been  ob- 
jected to  their  answer  in  v.  9,  that  they  had  neglected  to  ad- 
monish their  companions  of  their  danger  while  there  w^as  yet 
an  opportunity  to  avoid  it,  although,  haying  been  awake,  they 
must  have  known  it.— It  would  be  equally  improper  to  lay  stress 
on  the  word  sk§v^s  in  Matt.  xiii.  44,  which  has  no  bearing  on  the 
subject  of  the  parable,  but  is  necessary  to  make  the  narrative 

(V)  V.  2G.  {w)  V.  27,  (a-)  Comp.  Job.  xxxiii.  15. 

(y)  And  that  witliout  affording  any  ground  of  censure;  Mar.  iv.  37. 
(»)  Matt.  siii.  37,  s.  («)  v.  29.  s.  (6)  Matt.  xxv.  5. 

(c)  v.\S.  (d)  ^.4.  («)  6.  XVII. 

( O  V.  6.  .  (§•)  V.  9.  s.  '' '  ^.#  **' 


ii(}5i. 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHWS'J 


complete,  as  it  would  have  been  folly  to  purchase  a  field  on 
account  of  the  treasure  it  contained,  while  that  very  treasure 
w^as  left  exposed,  and  liable  to  be  removed  in  the  meanwhile. 
In  Matt,  xviii.  23.  ss.  it  is  in  order  to  render  the  com- 
mencement of  the  parable  less  abrupt,^"  and  to  smooth  the 
transition  to  its  proper  subject  in  v.  24,  that  the  king  is  repre- 
sented as  taking  account  of  his  servants  generally,  (k)  and  by 
that  means  occupied  in  hearing  others  (i)  while  the  merciless 
servant  withdrew,*^'  and  ignorant  of  what  he  did  without .^^ 
Thus  the  passage  in  v.  31,  became  necessary,  to  connect  this 
portion  with  the  remainder  of  the  parable,  (k)  although  it  has 
no  part  in  the  application  of  the  whole,  since  a  relation  of  the 
kind  which  it  describes  must  certainly  be  unnecessary  to  the 
Deity.  (/) There  are  many  things  of  this  sort  in  the  para- 
ble of  the  prodigal  son  ;  (m)  where,  for  instance,  we  are  not 
to  look  for  any  particular  signification  in  the  division  of  the 
father's  goods,  (w)  or  in  the  departure  of  the  prodigal.*  (o) 


(h)    V 

.23. 

(i) .  Comp.  V 

.24. 

ik)  V. 

.32. 

ss. 

(Z)  V. 

35. 

m)  Lu.  XV. 
(0)  V.  13. 

11.  ss. 

in)  V. 

12. 

6  0  So  in  Lu.  xvi.  the  compulsion  of  the  steward  to  render  his  account 
is  not  abruptly  introduced,  but  the  way  to  that  event  is  prepared  by  the 
mention  of  the  accusation  {S'tiCx}iBn)  in  v.  1. 

6 1  Our  Saviour's  representation  of  the  cruelty  of  the  man  to  his  fel- 
low servant,  as  having  occurred  when  he  was  scarcely  out  of  the  pre- 
sence of  his  judge,  who  was  yet  sitting,  and  taking  account  of  his  fel- 
low servants,  tends  to  excite  in  us  the  greater  detestation  of  the  man  who 
can  so  far  forget  the  mercy  and  indulgence  of  God,  of  which  he  con- 
tinually stands  in  need,  as  to  be  unmerciful  to  his  fellow  men. 

6  2  The  subject  of  the  narration  being  a  human  monarch,  was  to  be 
described  with  all  the  characteric-.tics  of  a  7nan.  Co  nip.  also  ctxa;  in  Lu- 
XX.  13.  a'.d  also  Lu.  xv.  18.  '21.  (§.  XIV.  end). 

*  [  With  respect  to  the  former  of  these  examples,  it  is  so  evidently  a 
piece  of  ihe  necessary  machinery  of  the  story,  and  so  little  connected 
with  the  general  scope  of  the  parable,  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the 
correctness  of  S  torr's  remark.  But  it  appears  very  questionable  whether 
the  removal  of  the  prodigal  to  a  far  country  has  no  bearing  on  the  apo- 
dosis  of  the  parable.  The  sin  against  the  father  (v.  18.  21.)  could  only 
Lave  consisted  in  the  demand  of  a  division  of  his  goods,  and  this  departure. 
The  latter  alone  ^jan  be  alluded  to  in  the  expressions  Kiwgcf  ntf  and  «t?ro- 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  203 

The  latter  was  introduced  because  it  would  be  incongruous 
to  represent  an  indulgent  (p)  father  suffering  his  son  to  sink 
*to  such  a  pitch  of  disgrace  and  misery  (7)  if  he  were  resident 
in  the  same  place,  so  that  his  necessity  must  have  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  father.  The  other  was  introduced  in  order 
that  we  might  perceive  the  poverty,  (r)  which  so  strongly  de- 
picts the  misery  of  sinners,  {s)  to  be  the  consequence  of  the 
son's  own  crimes,  and  for  the  purpose  of  setting  in  a  stronger 
light  the  mercy  of  the  father  towards  his  son  who  had  no 
right  to  expect  any  more  from  him  than  he  had  already  re- 
ceived. (0     See  the  passage  of  Cocceius,  quoted  in  note  48. 


§.  XIX. 

All  these  minor  discrepancies  between  the  narration  and 
the  thing  signified  {u)  will  create  less  difficulty  to  us,  if  we 
carefully  attend  to  the  fact,  that  the  great  cause  of  the  utility 
of  parables  is  that  they  do  not  immediately  present  to  notice 
the  thing  signified  itself,  but  first  prove  that  with  reference  to 
some  other  thing,  which  they  are  designed  to  teach  concerning 
it.  The  construction  of  language  therefore,  in' which  the  narra- 
tive is  clothed,  should  be  such  that  it  may  bear  inspection  hy 

(p)  V.  20.  (9)  V.  15.  s.  (r)  V.  14—16. 

{S)  §.  XIV.  end.  (0  v.  19,  end,  and  v.  30.         (w)  §.  xvi — xviit. 


xaXflDf »?(».  24,  32,)  which  are  the  only  epithets  used  by  the  fatherto  desig- 
nate the  former  miserable  condition  of  his  son.  In  fact,  in  any  case,  the 
entire  separation  from  the  paternal  care  and  superintendence  would  be  a 
weighty  cause  of  complaint,  but  is  more  particularly  heinous  in  the  East, 
where  the  distinction  of  tribes,  &c.,  is  religiously  observed,  and  the  pater- 
nal authority  is  much  more  strictly  exercised  than  in  western  nations. 
Now  the  sins  of  the  prodigal  against  his  father  are  certainly  an  import- 
ant part  of  the  protasis  of  the  parable,  corresponding  to  the  sinfulness  of 
men,  and  their  liability  to  the  just  wrath  of  God  in  the  apodosis.  If,  then^ 
the  departure  of  the  prodigal  be  a  prominent  part  of  his  offences  against 
his  father,  and  these  essential  to  the  meaning  of  the  parable,  it  is  surely 

improper  to  place  the  former  in  the  low  rank  assigned  to  it  by  Stork 

Tr] 


U64: 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CURtST. 


itself  as  cm  indepmdent  whole,  and  afford  satisfactioh  when  so 
considered,  and  be  perfect  in  its  kind.  Now  as  the  thing  nai^ 
rated  is  distinct  from  the  thing  signified,  some  things  may  be 
required  to  m:ike  the  narration  of  the  former  perfect,  which 
are  unnecessary  in  the  signification  of  the  latter.  The  exist- 
ence of  this  distinction  cannot  be  any  hindrance  to  the  per- 
ception of  the  signification,  if  we  orAy  acknowledge  it,  and  seek 
to  discover  the  signification  not  so  much  from  particular  parts 
of  the  narration,  as  from  its  whole  context.  This  course  is 
plainly  taught  by  our  Lord  himself,*^^  who,  for  example,  com- 
pares the  kingdom  of  Heaven  (t;)  indiflferently  to  of  frco^iire, 
and  to  a  merchant  seeking  pearls,^"^  which  he  could  not  have 
done  unless  his  intention  had  been  that  the  whole  context  of 
his  narrations  should  relate  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  so 
should  be  understood  to  signify  that  the  case  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  was  similar  to  those  of  a  man  discovering  a  trea- 
sure, or  a  merchant  seeking  pearls.*''  For  certainly,  in  the 
latter  instance,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  does  not  resemble  the 
single  part  of  the  narration  which  the  merchant  constitutes, 
but  rather  that  of  the  pearl,  {w)  But  the  case  of  the  heaven- 
ly kingdom — its  value,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  is  to  be 
sought — agrees  remarkably  well  with  the  zvhole  history  of  the 
merchant. 

Again,  if  it  were  part  of  llie  nature  of  a  parable  that  the  thing 
signified  and  the  narration  should  correspond  so  perfectly,  a^ 
that  the  former  should  be  intelligible,  not  from  the  whole  struc- 
ture of  the  latter,  but  from  its  several  individual  parts ;  how 
then,  (to  use  the  words  of  Augustin  ^'^ )  could  the  parable 
prove  any  thing  from  its  very  dissimilitude?  In  the  parable 
of  the  unjust  judge,  {x)  for  instance,  there  certainly  is  no  re- 
semblance between  the  latter  and  the  Deity,  but  it  is  the 

(p)  Malt.  xiii.  44.  (jv)  v.  46.  (x)  Lu.  xviii.  1. 


6  3  Gomp.  CAiixTtis,  p.  185.  s. 

0  4  Gomp.  similar  formulae,  v.  24.  xxii.  2.  xviii.  23. 

6  5  Gomp.  xiii.  18. 

•  «  Lib.  n.  Quaest.  Eyang.  v.  xiv.  0pp.  Tom.  iv.  p.  358 


*  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  265 

■whole  histoiy  concerning  him  (y)  that  conveys  the  purport  of 
the  parable,  (z)  From  this  we  learn  that  even  an  unjust 
judge,  wearied  with  the  continual  repetition  of  prayers  for 
justice,  will  deliver  the  innocent  from  injury ;  there  is  far 
greater  (a)  reason  to  expect  that  the  perfectly/ just  (6)  judge  of 
all  will  willingly  grant  the  continual  (c)  prayers  of  men  who 
are  the  objects  of  his  love,  {d) In  the  parable  of  the  un- 
just steward,  (e)  the  repentant  pubhcans  (/)  who  spent  their 
unjustly  gotten  gains  in  acts  of  beneficence  to  the  poor,  (g) 
and  especially  to  the  pious  poor,  {h)  bear  no  resemblance  to 
the  steward  who  aggravates  his  former  guilt  (i)  by  a  new  act 
of  dishonesty ;  {k)  nor  is  God  like  the  master  (/)  who  praised 
an  act  of  wicked  cunning.  The  object  of  our  Lord  is  to  teach 
by  the  whole  narration :  that  "  if  that  master  praised  the  cun- 
ning injury  done  himself,  by  which  his  steward,  making  a 
dishonest  use  of  his  master's  property,  provided  for  his  own 
future  wants  in  such  a  way  that  when  he  should  have  no  fur- 
ther controul  over  his  master's  goods,  there  should  be  some 
at  any  rate  that  would  receive  him  ;  much  more  will  God  ap^ 
prove  the  faithftd  (m)  use  of  ill  gotten  riches,  in  a  way  agree- 
able to  his  will,  (m)  by  a  distribution  of  them  among  the  poor 
of  your  generation,  (o)  i.  e.  among  my  disciples,  (p)  in  conse- 
quence of  which  those  beneficiaries  will  receive  you,  when 
the  goods  of  this  world  shall  fail  you,  into  the  eternal  habita- 
tions of  the  blest,  (q) — in  other  words,  it  will  have  the  effect, 
that  you,  having  thus  by  the  communication  of  your  benefac- 
tions to  my  worshippers,  shown  the  sincere  conversion  of  your 
mind  ^  from  its  former  covetousness  to  me,  and  proved  your 
faithfulness  by  your  care  of  greater  riches,  (?)  shall  re- 
ceive from  me  {s)  on  whom  you  will  have  been  conferring  the 
same  benefits  bestowed  on  them,  {t)  the  reward  of  everlasting 

(ij)  V.  2—5.  (z)  V.  6—8.  (a)  Comp.  xi.  13. 

(6)  Comp.  n.  Thess.  i.  6.         (c)  v.  1.  (d)  c*cXc«ro)v,  Lu.  xviii.  7. 

(e)  Lu.  xvi.  1.  ss.  (/)  xv.  1.  (g)  xix.  8. 

(h)  xvi.  0.  (i)  xvi.  1.  (k)  V.  6.  7. 

{D  V.  8.  (m)  V.  10—12.  (n)  xii.  21.  S3. 

(o)  yeveag,  xvi.  8.  (p)  v.  1.  (q)  v.  9. 

(r)  V.  10—12.  (.0  Mat.  XXV.  34,  (t)  v.  35—40 

34 


266  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

happiness."  {u) — —In  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  the 
Pharisees  are  not  directly  represented  by  the  elder  son,  (v)  for 
they,  who  blamed  the  kindness  of  Christ  to  publicans  and  sin-., 
ners,  {w)  were  nevertheless  as  much  degenerate  sons  of  God', 
as  the  publicans  and  sinners  yet  unconverted  from  their 
sinful  lives,  (x)  The  reasoning  of  Christ  appears  to  be  as 
follows :  "  if  even  they,  who  have  long  zvorshipped  God,  (y) — 
if  even  those  just  ones  who  have  never  departed  from  his 
ways,  {z)  have  no  right  to  make  any  objection  («)  to  the  great 
pleasure  which  is  taken  by  the  good  (6)  in  the  conversion  of 
sinners  ;  hoiu  much  less  ought  you,  who  in  fact  are  no  better 
than  the  sinners  whom  you  despise,  to  find  fault  with  my  care 
for  the  salvation  of  sinners  ?  "  (c) — Lastly,  the  import  of  the 
parable  of  the  debtors,  (d)  is,  that  to  whomsoever  most  sins 
are  forgiven,  that  man  will  be  the  most  grateful  in  will  and 
deed,  (e)  a  truth  which  is  remarkably  confirmed  by  the  in- 
stance of  St.  Paul.  (/)  Yet  there  is  no  need  of  concluding 
from  this  parable  that  Simon,  to  whom  in  particular  it  was 
applied,  had  been  forgiven  fewer  sins  (g)  than  the  penitent 
woman.  The  argument  is  this :  "  if  he  who  has  been  for- 
given fewest  sins,  is  less  at  pains  to  show  the  love  of  which  in 
reality  he  feels  less  than  one  who  has  been  forgiven  so  many ; 
how  much  more  is  it  to  be  expected  that  thou,  who  hast  re- 
ceived no  forgiveness  shouldst  come  far  short  in  thy  demon- 
strations of  respect  and  love,  (/^)  of  this  woman  who  has  re- 
ceived froiti  me  (i)  forgiveness  of  many  sins  ?  "  {k) 


§.  XX. 

Any  thing  intentionally  signified  by  Christ  in  any  of  his 
parables,  is  equally  sufficient  for  the  proof  of  doctrine  with 
any  other  of  the  sayings  of  our  Lord.     Such  proof,  therefore, 

(u)  V,  46.  (v)  Lu.  XV.  25.  ss.  (w)  v.  2. 

(x)  Comp.  Mat.  xxu  30. 32.  xxiii.  (y)  v.  29. 3!. 

(«)  V.  7.  (a)  V.  32.  (6)  v.  7.  10.  32. 

(c)  V.  1.  s.  (d)  Lu.  vii.  41.  s.  (e)  v.  4,7. 

(/)  I.  Tim.  1 12.  ss.      (g)  Comp.  Lu.  vii.  47.  (h)  v.  44.  ss. 


THE  PARABLES  Of  CHRIST.  267 

may  be  very  properly  derived,  not  only  from  the  authentic  in- 
terpretation of  any  parable,  whether  full,  as  in  Matt.  xiii.  19. 
ss.,  37.  ss.,  or  more  general  and  brief ;(/)  but  also  from  the 
fictitious  narration,  or  all  such  parts  of  it  as  are  not  inserted 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  its  historical  form  or  keep- 
ing  up  the  connexion,  (m)  but  are  plainly  either  altogether 
superfluous,  or  else  invested  with  a  certain  signification :  what- 
ever signification  can  be  deduced  from  these  by  legitimate  (n) 
interpretation,  is  properly  (o)  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  any  doc- 
trine which  it  may  contain.*  But  no  such  use  can  be  made 
of  a  rash  accommodation  of  a  parable  to  a  subject  foreign  from 
the  known  (p)  design  of  the  Saviour,  as  has  been  done  by 
those  who  have  found  in  the  parable  of  the  good  Samari- 
tan, (q)  Mam  under  the  figure  of  the  way-laid  traveller, 
Christ  ^  under  that  of  the  good  Samaritan,t  (r)  and  a  number 
of  other  allegorical  and  mystico-prophetical  senses,  (s)  Nor 
can  anything  be  positively  proved  from  such  parts  of  the  nar- 
rative as  may  have  been  admitted  only  on  account  of  its  his- 
torical form  and  connexion,  {t)  or  from  a  too  minute  ^  in- 
terpretation (m)  of  even  the  principal  parts.  To  give  an  in- 
stance of  the  legitimate  use  of  parables  in  proof  of  doctrine ; 
— in  Matt,  xxii.,  the  parts  of  the  parable  which  occupy  verses 
8 — 10  and  11 — 13,  might  have  been  omitted  without  any  in- 
jury to  the  completeness  of  the  narration  ;  but,  as  they  cannot 
have  been  altogether  useless,  they  must  have  a  necessary  apo- 

(T)  5.  XIII.  beginning.  (m)  §.  xvi.  xviii.  (n)  {.  xui.  xiv. 

(0)  {.XV.  (p)  $.  xni.  XIV.  (q)  Lu.  x.  30. 

(r)  V.  33.  (s)  See  note  48.  (0  §.  xv— Xix. 

(m)    §.  XIV. 


*  [  "  Though  every  thing  in  a  parable  be  not  argumentative,  yet  the 
scope  of  it  is,  as  all  divines  acknowledge."  Bull.  Sermons ;  Vol.  i.  Semi, 
in.  p.  63.      Tr.1 

6 1  Comp.  Franzius  de  Interp.  Orac.  cxxiii.  p.  763.  s. 

t  [  See  Ernesti's  Elements  of  Interpretation.  Stuart's  Trans.  §.  158, 
note,  p.  80.      Tr.  1 

« t  Such,  for  instance,  as  should  not  recognize  the  existence  oitynec- 
doche,  nor  allow  the  possibility  of  a  substitution  of  a  species  or  individual 
for  a  genus  i  but  should  every  where  consider  the  same  8peciC9  or  in- 
dicidml  object  to  be  intended. 


"i^S  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

dosis  of  their  own,  and  it  may  be  very  certainly  inferred  tironi 
them,  that  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  was  foretold  by  Christ, 
arid  that,  he  inculcated  a  diligent  study  to  prepare  the  soul  for 
the  possession  of  the  blessings  proffered  by  the  gospel.^^  In 
like  manner,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  found  an  argument,  as 
has  been  done  by  Bucer  {v)  and  Weisman,  (w)  on  the  phrase 
viro  rwv  ay/sXwv,  (a)  in  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Laza- 
rus ;  since  there  is  nothing  in  all  the  structure  of  the  narrative 
to  render  that  addition  necessary,  the  narration  being  per- 
fectly complete  without  it.  There  could  therefore  be  no  rea- 
son ^°  why  our  Lord  should  have  mentioned  the  conveyance 
of  the  soul  of  Lazarus  to  Paradise  by  a  company  of  angels^ 
except  a  design  to  signify  some  circumstance  of  the  blessed- 
ness of  the  pious  dead.  Nor  can  his  intention  be  to  convey  a 
general  notion  by  this  special  illustration  ;  for  that  it  was  by 
the  providence  of  God  that  Lazarus  was  brought  to  Abraham's 
bosom,  is  so  evident,  that  the  phrase  ucro  twv  ayysXwv,  if  de- 
signed to  convey  that  meaning,  would  have  been  perfectly 
needless.  Hence  we  may  believe  '^  that  our  Savionr  intend- 
ed to  point  out,'^  in  the  example  of  the  dying  Lazarus,  the 
manner  in  which  the  divine  providence  is  exercised  towards 
the  good  in  the  hour  of  death.— But,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
is  no  more  reason  for  concluding  from  the  same  parable  (a/) 
that  the  souls  of  the  blessed  hold  intercourse  with  other  spirits 

(V)  Comm.  in  loc.  (w)  Inst.  Theol.  exegetico-dogm.  p.  283. 

(x)  Lu.  xvi.  22.  (y)  v.  23.  ss. 


e  9  We  have  already  seen  (note  52,)  that  the  gradation  of  future  re- 
wards can  be  proved  from  Lu.  xix.  17.  ss. 

7  e  The  reasons  why  the  mention  of  this  circumstance  cannot  be  at- 
tributed to  accommodation  to  a  common,  but  false,  opinion  of  the 
Jews,  are  given  at  length  in  the  Dissertation  on  the  Historic  Sense. 

1 »  Nor  does  any  objection  arise  from  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself, 
as  certainly  the  ministration  of  angels  (Heb.  i.  14,)  is  of  all  things  least 
incredible  in  that  most  important  change  of  our  condition. 

'  2  We  have  already  seen  ($.  XIV.)  that  this  may  take  placefin  para- 
bles which  are  not  examples  of  the  thing  signified.  It  ought  to  create 
much  less  surprize  in  such  as  are  cxawp?w  of  the  very  thing  signifieii. 
(n.37). 


THE  t>ARAHLES  OF  CHRIST.  ^69 

of  the  departed,  than  there  is  to  infer  from  Lu.  xii.  20,  that 
men  are  usually  divinely  premonished  of  their  death.  For 
those  who  neither  spoke  nor  acted,  might  be  introduced  by 
Christ,  in  accordance  with  the  parabolic  usage,  (z)  as  speak- 
ing or  acting,  whenever  there  was  a  sufficient  reason  for  the 
fiction.  But  the  precepts  in  xvi.  25.  s.  31,  would  not  have 
been  inserted  in  the  narration,  if  some  conversation  had  not 
been  invented.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  proved  that  the  conver- 
sation, which  the  historical  form  of  the  parable,  (a)  of  itself, 
rendered  necessary,  was  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
us  to  understand  that  there  is  some  intercourse  between  the 
departed  spirits  of  the  good  and  of  the  wicked.  -  Nor  does  it 
seem  to  follow  from  the  speech  of  the  rich  man  in  v.  27.  s. 
that  we  ought  to  suppose  the  wicked  solicitous  for  the  salva- 
tion of  their  survivors.  We  are  rather  to  consider  all  that  is 
said  by  the  rich  man  in  v.  24.  27.  s.  as  inserted  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  introducing  (b)  the  instructions  of  Abraham,(c) 
which  form  one  of  the  principal  parts  of  the  parable,  and,  if 
rightly  explained,  afford  an  ample  fund  of  most  important 
and  substantial  doctrinal  proofs. 


§.  XXI.  ■  '-'•^'^ 

There  is  no  reason  to  consider  the  rules  of  interpretation 
thus  laid  down  as  hnposing  needless  restraint  upon  the  preacher 
who  may  take  a  parable  for  his  subject ;  although  it  be  our 
firm  persuasion  that  the  popular  interpreter  should  be  govern- 
ed by  the  same  laws,  and  that  the  knowledge  of  Christians 
generally  should  be  founded,  not  on  human  ingenuity,  but  on 
sure  oracles  of  God,  the  force  of  which  is  beyond  a  doubt. 

For  in  the  first  place,  the  inadmissibility  of  making  every 
thing  out  of  any  thing  in  a  parabolic  text,  creates  no  peculiar 
difficulty.  The  ordinary  helps  in  homiletical  interpretation 
are  not  excluded  from  application  to  such  passages.  The 
part  of  the  preacher  is  to  make  use  of  the  doctrine  legitimate- 

(z)  J.  in.  (a)  5.  XVI.  (6)  $.  xvni.  (c)  v.  25. 8.,25, 31, 


^70  THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST. 

ly  {d)  derived  from  the  parable,  just  as  he  would  of  that  drawn 
from  any  other  part  of  the  Scriptures  :— to  confirm  it  with 
proof  from  holy  writ,  and  from  the  nature  of  tlie  subject ;— - 
to  define  its  meaning  accurately  and  illustrate  it  by  examples  ; 
—to  show  its  connexion  with  other  doctrines  and  their  mutual 
dependance  on  each  other ; — and  to  apply  the  whole  to  practi- 
cal use. 

Take  for  example  that  one  point  of  the  immoderate  care 
for  earthly  goods,  which  is  the  true  object  of  the  parable  in 
Lu.  xiv.  16.  ss.  What  ample  field  of  disquisition  and  what 
useful  matter  it  affords,  if  the  preachw  be  prepared  rightly  to 
explain  the  vice  and  prudently  distinguish  it  from  a  lawful  re- 
gard for  earthly  things ; — to  explain  the  evils  of  such  immo- 
derate care  from  the  context  (e)  and  other  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, considered  together  with  the  nature  of  the  subject ; — 
and  to  produce  incitements  of  different  kinds,  and  helps,  for 
surmounting  an  immoderate  attachmeht  to  this  world  1 — In 
like  manner,  the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  is  already  suf- 
ficiently full  of  meaning  and  useful  in  its  application  to  ob- 
viate all  necessity  of  resorting  to  the  allegorical  interpretation 
already  mentioned  (/)  or  any  hke  it. 

Often  it  is  even  possible  to  introduce  the  particular  applica- 
tions, which  it  would  be  rash  to  deduce  from  the  parable  itself, 
in  a  discussion  of  the  general  doctrine  which  the  parable 
really  does  convey.  So  in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  (g) 
it  would  be  improper  to  consider  the  several  marks  of  the 
father's  joy  and  pity  as  proofs  of  so  many  benefits  of  God 
to  men  ;*  but  as  these  particulars,  collectively  taken,  desig- 

(d)  §.  XX.  (e)  Note  43.  (/)  §.  xx.  (g-)  Lu.  xvi.  22.  s. 


*  [  Sumner,  for  instance,  a  writer  generally  remarkable  for  sound 
judgment,  has  certainly  erred  in  considering  the  circumstance  in  the 
narration  that  when  the  returning  prodigal  '  was  yet  a  great  way  off' 
his  father  ran  to  him,  and  affectionately  greeted  him — as  a  representa- 
tion of  the  eo-operating  grace  of  God.  Apostolical  Preaching,  p.  127. 
The  design  of  the  parable  is  to  express  the  willingness  of  God  to  receive 
repentant  sinners,  and  his  pleasure  in  their  conversion ;  it  does  not  re- 
late to  the  means  by  which  that  event  is  brought  about.       Tr.  ] 


THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST.  271 

iiate  generally  the  great  mercy  of  God  towards  repentant  sin- 
ners, for  that  very  reason  they  afford  an  opportunity  of  re- 
counting particularly  these  benefits  from  other  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

Secondly,  the  parabolic  method  may  be  turned  into  an  ad- 
vantage to  the  hearer,  if  the  desire  {h)  of  applying  every  par- 
ticular of  the  parable  directly  to  the  thing  signified,  be  avoided. 
— For  instance,  the  justice  of  the  punishment  of  tliose  who 
esteem  the  things  of  heaven  more  lightly  than  those  of 
earth,  may  be  much  more  vividly  represented  to  the  hearer 
than  it  would  be  otherwise,  if  the  master  of  the  feast  intro- 
duced in  the  narrative,  Lu.  xiv.  16,  be  first  proposed  to  his 
consideration  separately  from  any  reference  to  God,  and  it  be 
left  to  his  own  judgment  to  decide  whether  that  man  might 
not  be  justly  offended  with  his  guests,  who  at  his  previous  in- 
vitation had  given  him  hopes  of  their  appearance,  but,  when 
he  had  made  every  preparation  on  their  account,  had  not 
scrupled  to  refuse  to  come.  The  effect  of  this  will  be,  that 
the  hearer  having  perceived  in  another  case,  that  the  con- 
tempt of  proffered  benefits  may  justly  provoke  indignation, 
vdll  so  much  the  more  readily  allow  that  contempt  of  the  joys 
of  heaven,  (i)  even  though  unaccompanied  by  any  enormous 
sin  against  men,  is  a  grievous  crime,  (k)  In  the  same  way  it 
may  be  practicable  to  throw  no  small  degree  of  light  upon 
the  minor  parts  of  the  narration,"^  and  thus  to  prove  generally 
the  great  wisdom  of  its  author ; — a  popular  method  of  de- 
fending the  authority  of  Scripture  which  seems  worthy  of  par- 
ticular attention.  For  example,  if  we  examine  the  whole  series 
of  the  narration  in  Lu.  xiv.  16.  ss.  it  will  appear  much  more 
plainly  how  ill  the  giver  of  the  feast  must  have  taken  the  con- 
tempt of  his  entertainment,  since  he  preferred  inviting  the 
most  abject,  (/)  to  leaving  room  for  any  of  those  who  had  des- 
pised his  invitation,  (wi)     For  although  God  has  invited  the 

(h)  5.  XIX.  (0  V.  14.  s.  ik)  Add  {.  ix.  end. 

(0  V.  21.23.  (m)  r.  24. 


"  3  Comp,  Lu.  X.  (p.  )  Matt,  xviii.  (note  61.) 


272  THE  PARABLES  OP  CHRIST. 

publicans  (n)  and  gentiles,  (o)  to  a  participation  of  eternal 
happiness,  on  the  same  terms  as  others ;  yet  Christ  in  this 
place  designedly  omits  to  mention  the  great  change  (p)  which 
such  persons  must  undergo  if  desirous  of  partaking  of  the 
offered  blessings',  and  considers  them  with  reference  only  to 
their  first  condition.*  This  he  did  for  the  purpose  of  more 
vividly  representing  to  the  man  for  whose  use  the  parable  was 
especially  designed,  (9)  that  persons  longing  after  this  world's 
goods,  be  they  ever  so  much  more  disposed  toward  Christ 
than  others, — be  they  ever  so  often  affected  with  good  de- 
sires, (r)  are  so  displeasing  in  the  sight  of  God,  that  he  will  ad- 
mit rather  than  them  the  veiy  persons  whom  they  despise  as 
wicked  and  idolaters,  {s)  to  the  possession  of  eternal  happi- 
ness. 

Lastly,  as  even  the  Apostles  often  adopted  the  language  of 
the  sacred  writings,  although  in  a  sense  different  from  that 
which  it  possessed  in  the  Old  Testament  f*  it  is  certainly  al- 
lowable in  the  preacher  to  accommodate  the  particular  parts 
even  of  Ihe  parables  of  Christ  to  his  own  purpose,  although 
that  may  differ  from  the  original  intention  of  our  Lord,  pro- 
vided he  do  it  with  prudence  and  moderation.  In  doing  this, 
however,  he  must  be  careful  never  to  appear  to  prove  what- 
ever doctrine  he  may  advance,  by  the  declarations  of  Christ, 
but  to  speak  plainly  in  his  own  name,  and  merely  borrow  his 
expressions  from  the  parable. — This  liberty  of  accommodation 
may  be  exemplified  by  Matt.  xiii.  24.  ss.  To  the  demonstra- 
tion derived  thence,  that  the  Lord  wisely  tolerates  for  the 

(n)  V.  21.  (0)  V.  23.  comp,  p.  (p)  Mat.  xxii.  11.  ss. 

(j)  Note  Ao.  (r)  Lu,  xiv.  15.  («)  Mat.  viii.  11.  s.  xxi.  31. 


^  [  The  very  same  peculiarity  is  observable  in  the  parable  of  the 
Pharisee  and  publican.  The  latter  is  represented  as  filled  with  the 
deepest  contrition  and  humility,  it  is  true,  but  no  mention  is  made  of 
any  previous  reformation.  *'  The  true  purport  of  the  parable  appears  to 
be,  that  an  humble  Publican,  disposed  towards  repentance,  is,  with  all  his 
ricei,  more  acceptable  to  God,  than  a  proud  censorious  Pharisee,  with^all 
his  strictness,  sobriety,  and  regularity."  Waterland,  Serm.  Vol.  t. 
p- 193.    Of  course  the  application  is  a /brfion.       ZV.  ]         ■ 

■''*   Comp.  Diss,  de  sensu  historico,  ^.  XXIV. 


THE  PARABLES  OF  CHRIST.  273 

present  the  wicked  in  his  church,  whence  they  are  ultimately 
to  be  separated,  the  preacher  might,  with  the  utmost  propriety, 
join  an  admonition  that  every  one  for  his  own  part  guard 
against  evil  as  carefully  as  possible.  In  doing  this,  we  see  no 
reason  why  he  might  not  make  use  of  the  expression,  "  it  is 
therefore  not  allowable  in  us  to  sleep  "  although  the  words  of  our 
Lord  {t)  to  which  it  alludes,  have  not  the  signification  it  would 
attribute  to  them,  (m)  But  we  take  for  granted  that  this  pas- 
sage would  not  be  adduced  as  proof,  but  that  the  proof  of  the 
doctrine  would  be  derived  from  other  passages  of  Scripture, 
and  from  the  very  nature  of  the  subject. 

(0  V.  25.  iu)  5-  xviiz. 


35 


1(^ 


NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

AHE  TO  BE  FOUND  15  THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT. 


A  DISSEKTATION 

BY 

C.  C.  TITTMANN- 


THA.NBLATED  FROST  THE  LATIN, 

BY  MANTON  EASTBURN,  M.  A. 

RECTOR  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  ASCENSION,  NSW-VORK. 


V^      OF  THE  '/^ 


■w^^ 


NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 


IN  THE 


NEW  TESTAMENT. 


Among  the  adversaries  of  the  Christian  religion,  there  ap- 
pear to  have  been  some,  who,  on  account  of  a  certain  pecu- 
liar knoveledge  (yvwtf<s)  which  they  professed  to  possess  of 
things  divine  and  human,  presumed  to  distinguish  themselves 
by  the  pompous  name  of  Gnostics.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
enter  here  into  a  lengthened  discussiun,  as  to  the  nature  of 
this  knowledge  of  theirs  ;  my  object  being  rather  to  inquire 
into  the  period  at  which  it  took  its  rise.  It  would  moreover 
be  entirely  impracticable  ;  for  such  a  discussion  would  re- 
quire a  whole  volume,  if  we  would  repeat  all  that  learned 
men  have  written,  and  that  too  with  much  profound  erudition, 
on  the  character  of  the  Gnostic  philosophy.  Those  who 
are  desirous  of  acquiring  an  accurate  acquaintance  with 
this  subject,  may  obtain  it  by  examining  these  writers. 
Among  them  may  be  mentioned  Hammond,  in  his  Diss.  I.  de 
Episcopatu,  and  his  Annotations  on  the  New  Testament :  Jac 
Thomasius,  who  was  the  first  to  publish  any  thing  worthy  of 
commendation  on  the  subject  of  the  Gnostics,  in  his  work 
"  de  Originibus  Hist.  Phil,  et  Eccles. ;"  but  especially  Beau- 
soBRE,  in  his  learned  work  entitled,  "  Histoire  Critique  de  Ma- 
nichee  et  Manicheisme ;"  Mosheim,  Institutiones  H.  E.  maj. 
p.  136  s.  and  339  s. — Diss,  de  Caus.  suppos.  Libr.  inter  Christ., 


37S  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS  ^ 

in  Dissert,  ad  H.  E.  pert.  Vol.  i.  p.  223  s.,  and  in  many  other 
places ;  Brucker,  Hist,  Crit.  Phil.  T.  ii.  p.  639  s. ;  and  vi.  p.  400 
s. ;  Walch's  Hist,  of  heresies,  P.  i.  p.  224  s. ;  and  above  all,  the 
learned  Semler,  in  his  Hist,  dogmat.  fidei,  prefixed  to  Baum- 
garten's  Polemical  Theolog}%  Tom.  i.  p.  121  s.  and  in  Sel. 
Capita  H.  E.  T.  i.  p.  22.  40  ss.  A  summary  account  of  the 
whole  Gnostic  system  has  been  given  by  Schroeckh,  H.  E. 
Tom.  I.  p.  338  s.  and  Tom.  ii.  p.  348  s. — Leaving  this  out  of 
the  question,  therefore,  I  shall  proceed,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
appearance  of  vagueness  and  ambiguity,  to  state  the  precise 
subject  which  I  propose  t6  discuss.  The  reader  is  not  to 
suppose,  that  I  consider  all  which  has  come  down  to  us  re- 
specting the  Gnostics  and  their  errors,  as  nothing  better  than 
idle  fictions  ;  which  is  the  ridiculous  opinion  of  Arnold, 
in  his  Hist.  Eccles.  et  Haeres.,  and  has  been  long  ago  explod- 
ed by  Mosheim  and  others.  Nor  can  I  absolutely  deny,  that, 
about  the  time  of  Christ,  and  a  little  before,  there  was  in  use 
among  the  Persians,  and  those  neighboring  nations  which, 
according  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  speaking,  w^ere  properly 
called  Oriental,*  a  certain  kind  of  philosophy,  or  even  of  the - 


*  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Hebrews  called  those  nations  East- 
ern, who  lived  between  Egypt  and  the  Euphrates,  namely,  the  Persians 
and  Arabians  ;  and  the  region  inhabited  by  them,  the  East,  jj-jp ;  as 

in  Gen.  xvi.  12.  xxv.  6,  where  Abraham  is  said  to  have  sent  away  the 
sons  of  his  concubines,  i.  e.  of  Keturahand  Hagar,  mp    2f>t<~'7K  HOlp  , 

towards  the  East,  into  that  country  which  is  commonly  called  the  East, 
and  in  chap.  x.  30,  is  termed  DlpH   IH*  Hence,  in  Judges,  vi.  3.  and 

Job,  I.   3,  the  Arabians  are  called  Dlp-'J3,  vtoi  avArohay,  men  who 

dwell  in  the  East ;  and  the  Egyptians  are  distinguished  from  them  in 
I.  Kings,  IV.  30,  where  Solomon  is  said  to  have  excelled  the  people  of 
the  East,  i.  e.  the  Arabians,  who  were  very  famous  for  their  wisdom, 
especially  in  pointed  sayings ;  and  the  Egyptians.  They  styled  them- 
selves people  of  the  East,  in  Arabic  c^+£r^ ,  and  are  called  by  ns 
Saracens.  Jer.  xlix  28,  Hence  the  wise  men,  Matt.  ii.  1,  are  said  to 
have  come  d^ro  dyftToxav.  And  in  this  sense  the  term  East  should  be 
understood,  in  all  inquiries  on  the  subject  of  the  Oriental  philosophy  : 
the  mind  must  not,  therefore,  go,  in  this  treatise,  to  Western,  or  Jew- 
ish Asia,  and  Greece ;  much  less  to  those  European  provincefs,  which,  in 
any  other  case,  are  reckoned  as  part  of  the  East. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


279 


ology,  which,  as  it  flourislied  in  the  East,  may  be  termed  Ori- 
riental  ;  although  it  was  unknown  by  this  appellation  to  all 
antiquity,  and  embraced  opinions  respecting  God,  and  the 
origin  of  all  things,  both  moral  and  naturah  but  chiefly  the 
latter.  This  has  been  long  since  shewn  by  learned  men. 
But  whether,  besides  this  philosophy,  about  which  all  are  well 
agreed,  another,  of  a  peculiar  and  different  character,  was  cul- 
tivated in  Western  Asia  among  the  Greeks  and  Jews,  which 
Mosheim  considers  as  properly  the  Oriental  philosophy  ;  and 
from  this  as  the  fountain-head,  according  to  the  opinion  of 
MosHEiM,  11.  cc.  and  Brucker,  Tom.  vi.  p.  407,  sprang, 
not  in  the  time  of  Christ  only,  but  even  long  before,  a  certain 
new  philosophy,  viz.  that  of  the  Gnostics,  (Mosheim,  Instit. 
H.  E.  maj.  p.  142,  and  Brucker,  Tom.  ii.  p.  642.)  mixed  up 
with  various  and  peculiar  opinions  of  different  sects ,  which 
carried  with  it  a  new  and  mystical  appearance  of  a  more  divine 
philosophy,  and  constituted  a  peculiar  system  ;  and,  above  all, 
whether,  already  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  it  had 
spread  from  Egypt  and  Syria  into  Asia  Minor  and  Greece, 
was  well  known  among  the  Jews  in  Palestine,  was  favorably 
regarded  by  many,  was  made  use  of,  in  numerous  instances, 
for  the  purpose  of  confusing  and  deceiving  the  minds  of 
Christians,  was  diligently  practised  and  studied  with  the  view 
of  corrupting  the  pure  doctrine  by  sundry  errors,  and  of  thus 
weakening,  unsettling,  and  at  length  altogether  overthrowing 
the  foundations  of  the  Christian  religion,  while  as  yet  in  its 
incipient  and  growing  state  ;  and  defiled  the  whole  world  with 
its  iniquitous  doctrines  ;  (Brucker,  Tom.  n.  p.  639,)  so  that 
the  Apostles  were  obliged  seriously  to  admonish  Christians — 
to  prove  the  wickedness  of  the  system  in  their  writings — 
and  to  establish  and  defend  the  truth  of  Christianity  against 
these  its  worst  enemies — and  so  that,  moreover,  traces  of  this 
philosophy  are  found  in  their  writings,  both  in  allusions  to  it, 
in  refutations  of  it,  and  in  the  mention  of  it  by  name  ; — this 
is  the  subject  into  which  I  propose  to  inquire ;  and  about 
which,  I  confess,  I  entertain  very  strong  doubts. 

In  order  to  proceed  in  the  discussion  of  this  question  with 
the  greater  advantage,  I  have  thought  it  best  to  divide  i^ 


280  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSlics 

into  two  parts,  the  one  historical,  the  other  philological.  In 
the  former,  I  shall  bring  forward  the  grounds  upon  which  I 
contend,  that  the  philosophy  of  the  Gnostics  did  not  take  its 
rise  in  the  time*  of  the  Apostles,  but  at  a  later  period,  viz.  in 
some  part  of  the  second  century  ;  and  certainly  was  not  be- 
fore this  time  injurious  to  the  cause  of  Christianity.  In  the 
elucidation  of  this  point,  I  shall  adduce  two  separate  kinds  of 
proofs  :  the  one  drawn  from  the  express  testimony  of  ancient 
writers,  the  same  being  competent  witnesses  upon  the  sub- 
ject ;  the  other,  from  their  silence.  At  the  end  I  shall  subjoin 
a  brief  discussion  on  the  Oriental  philosophy.  In  the  philolo- 
gical part,  I  shall  mention  the  principal  places  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  which  traces  of  the  Gnostic  philosophy  have 
been  commonly  found,  and  shall  endeavour  to  shew,  that  a 
more  suitable,  and  perhaps  a  more  probable  interpretation 
may  be  given  to  these  passages  ;  adding  some  few  general  ob- 
servations at  the  last  in  regard  to  the  opposite  opinion  to  my 
own,  and  in  relation  to  the  whole  Gnostic  philosophy,  and  its 
sources  and  beginnings.  I  think  that  I  have  taken  the  correct 
course  for  the  discussion  of  the  present  inquiry.  In  proving 
questions  of  fact,  such  as  this  is,  the  thing  before  all  others 
to  be  regarded  is  the  order  of  time,  which,  it  is  obvious,  is  of 
no  little  importance  to  either  side,  in  determining  upon  the 
credit  to  be  attached  to  a  representation.  For,  as  the  credit 
to  be  placed  in  any  thing  is,  rightly  enough,  considered  to 
be  very  sure,  if  it  is  suitable  to  the  times  with  which  it  is 
connected,  and  unless  there  are  other  circumstances  which 
lead  to  an  opposite  conclusion  ;  so  this  credit  is  destroyed,  if 
it  can  be  shewn  that  what  is  related  is  unsuitable  to  the  pe- 
riod to  which  it  is  assigned :  by  which  means  numerous  false- 
hoods have  been  cleared  away  from  history  ;  and  it  is  with 
truth  asserted  of  chronology,  that  it  brings  history  to  the  highest 
possible  degree  of  certainty.  We  must  see  first  of  all,  then, 
in  the  present  instance,  whether  the  philosophy  in  question 
was,  as  early  as  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  diffused 
through  so  many  parts  of  the  world,  and  was  pernicious  to  the 
true  doctrine.  As  I  think  it  can  be  proved  that  this  happen- 
ed at  a  later  period,  that  is,  in  the  Second  Century,  it  will 


IN  THK  NEW  TESTAMEm".  '281 

immediately  be  seen  what  we  are  to  conclude,  in  i^gard  to 
the  alleged  traces  of  the  philosophy  of  the  Gnostics  in  the 
New  Testament  books. 


Part  I.     historical. 

I  SHALL  begin  by  mentioning  the  almost  universal  opinion, 
and  that  entirely  in  my  favor,  of  the  ancient  ecclesiastical 
writers :  among  whom  although  there  were  some,  who 
thought  that  the  doctrine  itself  of  the  Gnostics  began  in  the 
First  Century,  with  Simon,  Basilides,  and  others,  yet  they 
agreed  in  this,  that  the  name  of  Gnostics  began  to  be  used, 
though  indeed  in  rather  an  unfavorable  sense,  in  the  Second 
Century ;  for  example,  Irenaeus,  adv.  haeres.  L.  i.  c.  24,  and 
m.  11,  (which  last  passage  is  a  subject  of  considerable  contro»- 
versy  between  Lardner,  in  his  Supplement  to  the  Credibility 
of  the  Gosp.  Hist.  Vol.  i.  p.  383,  and  Michaelis,  Einleit.  ins  N. 
T.  P.  n.p.  1133,  Gott.  1788.*)  Jerom,  de  Script.  Eccles.  c. 
21,  and  especially  Epiphanius,  in  whom  some  passages  occur, 
which  deserve  to  be  mentioned.  For  instance,  in  Haer.  21, 
he  speaks  of  Simon,  and  says  that  he  delivered  fj^uCr^pia  yvCxfsus 
TTis  rsKsiorarris  ;  and  a  little  afterwards  he  adds,  x-ai  o-orug  ap-)(s- 
roLi  TQM  rva>tf'nxwv  xaXoufjos'vwv  >j  dpx^-  He  undoubtedly  means  to 
say,  not  that  the  name  of  the  Gnostics,  but  their  doctrine, 
had  its  beginning,  or  rather  was  first  broached,  at  that  time. 
For,  in  haer.  27,t  he  says  ;  xai  sv&sv  (i.  e.  in  the  times  of  Ani- 
Cetus,  of  which  he  is  speaking,)  ysy ovsv  vi  dpx»j  rvwCTixuv  twv 
xoXoujxsviJv.  From  which  it  is  plain,  that  it  was  the  opinion  of 
Epiphanius,  that  the  Gnostics  were  first  called  by  that  name 
in  the  time  of  Anicetus,  i.  e.  in  the  Second  Century.  Which 
was  the  opinion  of  Chrysostom  also  :  certainly  he  evinces 
great  hesitation,  and  speaks  with  much  caution,  on  i.  Tim.  vi, 
as  we  shall  see  hereafter. 


*  [  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol.  iii.  Part  i.  pp.  278.  279.  Lond.  ISO?.  -..Tr,  I 
'  [  Pa^e  108.  Vol.  1,  Ed.  Paris,  1623  ;  and  Ed-  Col  16^.— Tr.  | 

36 


282  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTPCS 


\ 


Among  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers,  however,  tliere 
were  others  also,  and  they  very  competent  witnesses  on  this 
subject,  who  expressly  asserted,  that  neither  the  name  of  the 
Gnostics,  nor  the  heresy  itself,  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ  and 
the  Apostles,  but  that  both  prevailed  about  the  time  of  Adrian, 
and  therefore  in  the  Second  Century  ;  and  were  a  source 
of  trouble  to  the  Christian  church,  after  the  Apostles  were 
dead.  Let  us  now  examine  the  testimony  of  these  writers. 
The  most  ancient  is  that  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Strom. 
L.  VII.  p.  764,  ed.  Sylburg.  where  he  says,  xarw  8s,  \.  e.  after 
the  Apostles,  of  whom  he  had  been  speaking,  *tp<  rovg  ASptavou 
^ou  jSaCiXswg  p(p6vouj,  oi  raj  atp^tfsig  sVjvo^fl'avrs^  ysyovatfi.  Though 
I  am  well  aware,  that  this  excellent  work  of  the  Stroma- 
ta  is  in  many  places  very  difficult,  and  perhaps  in  some  cor- 
rupted, since  we  have  not  very  many  manuscripts,  wherewith 
to  obviate  this  difficulty  by  various  readings  ;  yet  in  the  passage 
before  us,  which  is  quite  clear,  I  have  never  been  able  to  per- 
ceive what  confusion  or  manifest  error  there  is,  as  Mosheim 
thinks,  InstiK  H.  E.  Maj.  p.  315 ;  though,  as  he  himself  has  not 
pointed  out  the  precise  confusion  or  error  which  he  means, 
I  have  diligently  examined  the  whole  place.  Clement  is  em- 
ployed to  the  end  of  Book  vii,  in  refuting  the  opponents  of  the 
Christian  religion  ;  and  principally  in  answering  that  objec- 
tion, which  is  drawn  from  the  existence  of  heretics.  Having 
advanced  some  sound  arguments,  and  then,  after  his  usual 
manner,  made  a  digression,  he  goes  on  to  shew  the  antiquity 
of  the  doctrine  inculcated,  and  thence  to  determine  its  truth  ; 
and  to  exhibit,  on  the  contrary,  the  novelty,  and  therefore  the 
corruption,  of  heresies.  He  goes  back,  therefore,  as  it  were, 
to  the  fountain-head,  and  shews  that  the  commencement  of 
the  delivery  of  the  gospel  doctrine  was  made  by  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  while  Augustus  was  emperor,  and  that  its 
termination  was  in  the  reign  of  Nero  ;  but  that  the  absurdi- 
ties of  the  Gnostics  (for  that  it  is  of  these  that  Clement 
speaks,  is  very  clearly  shewn  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
discourse,)  began  to  be  disseminated,  and  to  be  pernicious  to 
the  pm'e  doctrine,  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  some- 
^vhere  in  the  reign  of  Adrian.     He  goes  on  to  observe^  '^fiv 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAilENT. 


28S 


rfi'aj,  ras  jXSTaysvgo'Tepag  raura?,  xai  Ta^  sVi  toutojv  uiTo/Ss^iixuia^,  to) 
^(povw  xsxaivoro/x^tf^ai  'Ka^cc/OLfCLy^sidas  a\ps(^sis.  From  which  he 
draws  the  conclusion,  that  that  doctrine  only  is  true,  which  is 
ancient  Now  I  do  not  see  how  Clement,  arguing  against 
the  heretics  of  his  time,  would  have  gained  any  thing,  or  ad- 
vanced his  cause,  by  wishing  to  keep  out  of  sight  the  antiqui- 
ty of  the  heresy  which  he  was  opposing.  Could  not  his  op- 
ponents, and  especially  those  to  whose  CcrsfxvTjixaTa  he  opposed 

TO.  xara  <n^v  aXr)5>j  9»Xo(J'o(p»av  yvwtfTixa  uifo/xvr/fjLaTa  (i.  e.  Commen- 
taries on  the  true  yvwrfi^,  or  knowledge,  for  this  is  the  real  title 
of  the  Stromata,)  have  accused  him  of  falsehood,  and  instant- 
ly refuted  his  declaration,  if  he  had  attempted  to  deny  any 
thing,  which  was  known  by  all,  and  certainly  by  them,  just 
as  well  as  by  himself?  By  such  a  course  Clement  would 
surely  not  have  considered  the  true  interests  of  his  cause. 
But  was  he  so  totally  ignorant,  and  so  unacquainted  with  the 
Gnostic  philosophy,  that  nothing  respecting  it  was  fami- 
liar to  him,  and  therefore  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  he 
committed  an  error  of  this  kind  ?  So  indeed  Mosheim  thinks, 
Instit.  H.  E.  Maj.  p.  326.  But  quite  differently  Brucker, 
who  expressly  says,  that  Clement  not  only  was  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  the  Greek  philosophy,  and  is  to  be  classed 
among  those  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  who  were  most 
distinguished  for  their  knowledge  of  it,  and  for  turning  it  to 
the  advantage  of  Christianity,  Hist.  Crit.  Ph.  Tom.  iii.  p. 
304  ;  but  was  also  thoroughly  skilled  in  Oriental  history  and 
learning,  Tom.  vi.  p.  410.  And  how  could  it  be  otherwise, 
when  Clement  was  born  and  Hved  in  Egypt,  where,  as 
Brucker  expressly  states  in  more  places  than  one,  the  Gnos- 
tic philosophy  was  in  very  great  repute  ;  and  when,  more- 
over, he  was  the  first  to  write  against  it  ?  This  circumstance 
ought  certainly  to  give  the  more  weight  to  his  testimony. 
Mosheim  appears  to  have  felt  this  difficulty  ;  for,  in  his 
Institut.  Hist.  Eccl.  Ant.  et  Rec.  p.  56,*  he  supports  his  own 


*  [  Cent.  I.  Part  ii.  Ch.  v.  Sec  3,  of  Mosheim's  Eccl.  Hist,  translat- 
ed by  MAeLAiNB.—Tr.  ] 


*2S4  XO  TflACKS  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

opinion,  but  attempts  to  soften  it  down,  by  adding,  that  thtst 
stray  Jlocka  did  not  arrive  at  any  great  number,  confederacy^ 
or  reputation,  before  the  time  of  Adrian  :  and  in  his  Institut.  H. 
E.  Maj.  p.  310,  he  observes,  those  halfchristian  sects,  which 
PERHAPS  became  united  before  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  were 
not  numerous,  nor  well  organized  and  established,  because  the 
friends  of  our  Saviour  made  every  effort  to  prevent  their  gain- 
ing strength  ;  although  in  p.  142,  he  says  that  the  sect  did  not 
arise  when  Christianity  was  beginning  to  pervade  the  whole 
loorld,  but  was  in  existence  long  before;  and  Brucker  himself 
says,  that  Mosheim  discovered,  that  the  Gnostic  philosophers 
defiled  the  whole  world  with  their  depraved  doctrines  about  the 
time  of  the  birth  of  Christ.  Tom.  ii.  p.  639.  Such  continual 
wavering  is  surely  evidence  enough  of  a  doubtful  cause. 

Another  very  remarkable  testimony  is  that  of  Hegesippus. 
who  lived  in  the  time  of  Adrian,  according  to  Eusebius,  Hist. 
Eccles.  L.  IV.  c.  8,  p.  121 ;  though  Valesius,  in  his  note  on 
this  place,  doubts  the  truth  of  the  statement.  The  testimony 
referred  to  is  to  be  found  in  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  L.  m.  c. 
32.  p.  104  s.  edit.  Mogunt. ;  and  is  as  follows  :  'fig  apa 
fiig^pi  rwv  TOTS  "Xj^^r^y  ^ap^s'vo^  xaSapa  xa<  d^ja(pSo/JO£;  tfxsjvsv  vi 
sxxXyitfla,  sv  dS/iK(f)  crou  tfxoTSi  (pwXsuovTOJV  sjVsVi  tots,  twv,  el  xai  TJVffj 
y^^^j^ov,  'r:apa(p'hslp?iv  i'r^i-)(Sfpo6vTuv  tov  vyirj  xavova  tou  CwT*]pjou  xtfipvy' 
jftttTOff.  *f2ff  5'  0  Ispog  TWV  'A-rrotfToXcov  x°^^^  diacpcpov  slK'/}(p£i  tow  /8iou 
TsXoj,  'n'apBKri'Kv'^si  rs  '/j  ysvsa  sxeivi^  twv  aMrcug  dxoaTg  Ty\z  IvSe'ou  tfo^iaj 
gflr'axoutfaj  xaTyi|iwfXsvwv,  Tr^vwauTa  t^j  d^sou  -rXavajj  to^'v  ctpp^oi'v  sXafX- 
€avsv  ^\  (fC(f7a(fig,  SioL  T>jg  twv  iTS^o^i^atfxaXwv  dcfaT-yj^.  oi'  xai  otTS 
IXTjSsvog  gTj  TWV  'A's'oo'to'Xwv  Xsj'Tojxgvou,  yufjLv^  Xoicrov  ^8yi  t^  xs^aXof, 
Tw  T^jg  dXiidefag  xyjpuy/xaTi  ttj'v  -vl^sufJwvujAov  yvwtfiv  dvTJXvj/ji^TTeiv  ^<n's- 
XSjpouv.  '  After  this  Hegesippus  adds  ;'  "  that  the  church  un- 
til this  time,  (viz.  that  of  Adrian)  remained  as  a  virgin,  pure 
and  uncorrupted,  while  those  who  were  endeavoring  to  cor- 
rupt the  sound  standard  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  hither- 
to lay  hidden  in  dark  obscurity.  But  after  the  sacred  compa- 
ny of  the  Apostles  had  terminated  their  lives  in  various  ways, 
and  the  generation  had  passed  away  of  those  who  had  been 
deemed  worthy  to  listen,  with  their  own  ears,  to  the  divine 
Wisdom  himself,  then  arose  the  conspiracy  of  impious  error. 


IN  'iHFi  NEW  TESTAMENT.  '285 

liirougli  the  deceit  of  strange  teachers  ;  who,  as  none  of  the 
Apostles  now  remained,  attempted,  from  this  period,  to  pro- 
claim, in  opposition  to  the  preaching  of  the  truth,  that  know- 
ledge (yvojtfiff)  of  theirs,  falsely  so  called,  without  shame 
or  concealment/' — A  plain  and  very  clear  testimony,  surely, 
is  this.  But  is  it  also  certain  and  unquestionable  ?  Mosheim 
considers  it  as  by  no  means  such  :  for  he  thinks,  in  the  first 
place,  that  the  authority  of  Hegesippus  is  not  of  any  great 
weight ;  and  secondly,  that  he  is  not  speaking  of  the  whole 
Christian  world,  but  only  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  ;  and 
that  he  is  relating,  that  this  church  enjoyed  tranquillity  and 
peace  until  the  time  of  Simeon  the  bishop  ;  when  it  began  to 
be  distracted  and  disturbed  by  some  men,  who  were  more 
fond  of  their  own  glory  than  of  the  truth.  As  to  the  first  ob 
jection,  it  seems  hardly  just  to  make  such  an  assertion  of 
Hegesippus,  without  any  reason  being  mentioned  :  for  it  is 
very  evident  that  this  writer  was  not  only  learned,  but  also 
diligent  and  w^orthy  of  credit ;  and  he  receives  this  commen- 
dation both  from  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  L.  iv.  c.  8,  and  Pho- 
Tius,  who  have  recovered  some  fragments  of  him  from  the 
spoils  of  time.  As  for  the  other  objection,  so  far  from  fa- 
voring the  views  of  my  opponents,  it  is  directly  against  them, 
and  completely  agrees  with  my  own.  So  then  the  Gnostic 
philosophy,  by  the  confession  of  the  learned  men  from  whom 
I  differ,  did  not  spread  through  all  the  churches  of  the  world  I 
So  it  did  not,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  conta- 
minate the  whole  world  with  its  iniquitous  doctrines  !  But 
there  were  some  churches,  and,  among  these,  if  you  please, 
that  of  Jerusalem,  which  remained  pure,  and  were  not  cor- 
rupted by  wicked  doctrines.  I  might,  therefore,  without  any 
injury  to  my  own  side  of  the  question,  agree  with  Mosheim, 
that  this  passage  of  Hegesippus  is  to  be  understood  only  of 
the  church  of  Jerusalem.  But  even  this  is  unnecessary, 
since  Eusebius  himself  did  not  consider  it  as  referring  to  that 
alone  ;  as  appears  plainly  from  Hist.  Eccl.  L.  iv.  c.  22.  p. 
142  s,  where  he  cites  other  passages  of  the  same  Hegesippus, 
from  which  it  is  evident,  that  this  writer  attributed  to  other 
churclfes,  in  which  he  himself  was,  viz.  the  .Corinthian  and  the 


^M6  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS     , 

Roman,  the  same  purity  of  doctrine,  which  in  the  above^ 
mentioned  passage  he  had  commended  in  the  church  of  Jeru- 
salem. Valesius,  indeed,  as  Mosheim  has  also  observed, 
finds  fault  with  Eusebius,  in  his  note  on  the  place  under  dis- 
cussion, for  understanding  the  words  of  Hegesippus  to  apply 
to  the  whole  church  :  he  does  not,  however,  deny  the  fact  it- 
self, as  may  be  seen  by  his  observations  on  L.  iv.  c.  7,  where 
he  says,  that  Eusebius  correctly  states  that  the  heresy  of  Ba- 
silides  began  in  the  reign  of  Adrian  ;  for^  he  adds,  the  heretics 
first  began  to  emerge  from  obscurity,  and  to  raise  their  heads t 
when,  the  Apostles  being  all  dead,  they  thought  that  a  good  op- 
portunity was  now  come  for  spreading  their  erroneous  doctrines. 
And,  in  short,  the  passage  of  Eusebius  just  referred  to  is 
abundantly  clear ;  for  he  there  very  plainly  assigns  the  Gnos- 
tics to  the  time  of  Adrian  ;  and  shews,  principally  from  the 
testimony  of  Irenaeus,  that  there  lived  at  the  same  period  one 
Carpocrates,  the  founder  of  a  sect,  called  Gnostics* 

But  let  us  turn  to  another  testimony,  that  of  Firmilian, 
bishop  of  Caesarea ;  which  is  found  in  a  letter  to  Cyprian, 
and  is  among  the  Epistles  of  the  latter.  It  is  as  follows : 
"  Quantum  ad  id  pertineat,  quod  Stephanus  dixit,  quasi 
Apostoli  eos,  qui  ab  haeresi  veniant,  baptizari  prohibuerint,  et 
hoc  custodiendum  posteris  tradiderint,  plenissime  vos  re- 
spondistis,  neminem  tam  stultum  esse,  qui  hoc  credat  Apos- 


*  [  Notwithstanding  the  ingenuity  which  the  author  has  here  displayed 
in  his  argument,  it  must  certainly  be  admitted,  that  there  is  no  little  dif- 
ficulty connected  with  these  passages  of  Eusebius  to  which  he  refers. 
The  inference  as  to  the  period  at  which  Hegesippus  lived,  drawn  by  Eu- 
sebius from  the  words  of  that  writer,  as  he  has  given  them  to  us  in  Lib. 
IV.  c.  8.  p.  121  s,  seems  to  be  by  no  means  well-founded  ;  and  the  testi- 
mony of  Hegesippus  in  Lib.  in.  c.  32.  p.  104  s,  of  Euseb.  if  examined 
in  connection  with  the  note  of  Valesius,  will  be  found  to  be  so  vague, 
as  to  leave  the  questioi^  of  a  general  application  to  the  church  at  large, 
or  of  a  particular  reference  to  that  of  Jerusalem,  quite  open  and  unde- 
cided. One  thing,  however,  is  clear  ;  that,  whether  Hegesippus  was  de- 
scribing thepure  state  of  the  church  universal,  or  of  one  particular  sec- 
tion of  it,  the  inference  is  fully  warranted,  that  the  Gnostic  heresy  was 
not,  during  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  generallv  known  and  diffused.— 
Tr.-] 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  287 

tolos  tradidisse,  quando  etiam  ipsas  haereses  constet  execra- 
biles  et  detestandas  postea  extitisse ;  cum  et  Marcion,  Cer- 
donis  discipulus,  inveniatur  sero  post  Apostolos  et  post  longa 
ab  iis  tempora  sacrilegam  adversus  Deum  traditionem  indux- 
isse,  Apelles  quoque  blasphemiae  ejus  consentiens,  multa  alia 
nova  et  graviora  fidei  et  veritati  inimica  addiderit.  Sed  et  Va- 
lentini  et  Basilidis  tempus  manifestum  est,  quod  et  ipsi  post 
Apostolos  et  post  longam  aetatem  adversus  ecclesiam  Dei 
sceleratis  mendaciis  suis  rebellarint.  Cseteros  quoque  haere- 
ticos  constat  pravas  suas  sectas  et  inventiones  perversas, 
prout  quisque  errore  ductus  est,  postea  induxisse."  "As 
for  that  which  Stephen  has  said,  as  though  the  Apostles  for- 
bade those  to  be  baptized  who  came  over  from  heresy,  and  de- 
livered this  as  a  rule  to  be  observed  by  those  who  should  suc- 
ceed them,  you  have  very  completely  answered,  that  there  is 
none  so  absurd  as  to  believe  that  the  Apostles  made  any  such 
regulation :  since  it  is  plain  that  even  these  execrable  and 
abominable  heresies  themselves  arose  at  a  subsequent 
PERIOD ;  for  Marcion,  a  disciple  of  Cerdo,  is  found  to  have  in- 
troduced his  impious  tenets  long  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles  ; 
and  Apelles,  agreeing  with  him  in  these  bfasphemous  senti- 
ments, added  to  them  many  new  and  more  heinous  doctrines 
in  opposition  to  faith  and  verity.  Again,  in  regard  to  the 
period  of  Valentine  and  Basilides,  it  is  well  known  that,  by 
their  infamous  falsehoods,  they  rebelled  against  the  church  of 
God,  subsequently  to  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  after  a 
long  interval  of  time.  It  is  evident,  also,  that  the  other  here- 
tics introduced  their  different  depraved  sects,  and  wicked  no- 
tions, according  as  each  one  was  led  away  by  error,  at  a  sub- 
sequent period."  0pp.  Cyprian,  edit.  Baluz.  p.  144.  and 
Bremens.  p.  219.* — Is  it  possible,  therefore,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Gnostics  could  have  been  spread  far  and  wide  in  the 
time  of  the  Apostles,  if,  as  we  are  assured  on  the  authority  of 
Firmilian,  heresies  did  not  arise  till  afterwards  ?  J  am  not,  in- 
deed, ignorant  of  what  learned  men  advance,  in  order  to 


*  C  Page  219  s.  Ed.  Oxon.  1683.— Tr.  ] 


288  *  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

weaken  the  force  of  this  testimony ;  viz.  that  heresies  are  men- 
tioned by  St.  Paul  himself,  and  are  enumerated  among  the 
works  of  the  flesh  ;  i.  Cor.  xi.  19.  Gal.  v.  20 :  and  also  that 
instances  of  heretics  are  adduced  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
Alexander,  Hymenaeus,  the  Nicolaitans,  Simon  Magus,  and 
others.     These  objections,  however,  may  soon  be  answered. 
The  word  aipstfi?,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  of  one,  who, 
while  he  professes  himself  a  Christian,    dissents  from  the 
truth  delivered  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  so  dissents,  moreover, 
that  his  difference  of  opinion  relates  to  some  doctrine  of  re- 
ligion, on  the  removal  of  which  the  very  foundation  of  the 
faith  is  weakened  and  overthrown  ;  and  who,  finally,  so  de- 
fends this  antichristian  opinion,  that  he  founds  some  new  sect, 
distinct  from  the  Christian  church, — is  unknown  through  the 
whole  volume  of  Scripture  ;  but  obtained  that  signification  in 
subsequent  times.     At^sifts  is  used  in  Scripture  to  denote  the 
party  to  which  any  one  belongs;  as  atpsiftc  twv  la88ovxaiuv. 
Acts,  v.  17.  L  e.  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees,  in  an  inoffensive 
sense ;  ai'pstfig  (papi(ra«wv,  xv.  5,  called  in  xxvi.  5,  dxpi(3s<iTDL7Yi 
aVpetfig  ;  and  xxiv.  14,  which  passage  is  likewise  in  point.  And 
the  use  of  ai'^etfis  in  this  sense  is  borne  out  by  the  authority  of  all 
the  best  Greek  writers.  For  (1  add  this  for  the  benefit  of  young 
persons  who  are  studying  the  language,)  aipeCig  is  equivalent  to 
•nr^oai^gtfi^,  and  a'l^sitf&ai  to  'jepoaipsT(f&ai ;  for  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose 
that  the  preposition  •n'^o  is  at  all  emphatic,  since  it  is  plain,  from 
the  usage  of  the  best  writers,  that  frequently  there  is  no  force 
in  the  prepositions  -Jf^o,  rrs^t^  sx,  rfOv,  dva,  &c.,  joined  to  words, 
and  therefore  no  regard  to  be  had  to  them  in  the  interpreta- 
tion.    But  Demosthenes  frequently  uses  cr-poajpstfj^  in  the  sense 
of  the  sect,  or  party,  either  of  the  Optimates,  or  the  Populares, 
to  which  any  one  is  attached ;  and  flr^oaj^src^ai  also  means,  with 
him,  to  follow  the  party  either  of  the  Optimates,  or  the  Po- 
pulares.    But  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  has  used  crpoai- 
psftf^ai  and  "Tpoalpstfj^,  he  employs,  in  another  place,  a«pe«<J'^a<  and 
oi't^s<fie.    Examples  have  been  adduced  by  Krebs,  Commentar. 
ad  decreta  Rom.  pro  lud.  p.  402  s.      So  also  in  Josephus, 
Antiq.  Jud.  Lib.  xii.  c.  5.  §.  3.  Ed.  Oxon.  1720,  '^rpocctpiasdg 
cms  fivai,  is  to  be  of  any  one^s  party  ;  and  in  Clemens  Alex. 
the  phrases  aj'f«tf<?  lisei'ffaTsri'Kr;,  Htmuv^  &c.,  occur  ;  See  Strom. 


IN  t.he  new  testament.  289 

I.  p.  301. — In  other  places  of  the  New  Testament,  however, 
ai§s(tis  occurs  in  another,  and,  as  it  were,  a  new  sense  besides 
this ;  signifying,  not  only  the  party  to  which  a  person  is  attach- 
ed, but  also  the  dissensions  which  were  then  arising  in  certain 
assemblies,  though  meanwhile  the  pure  doctrine  of  religion 
continued  sound,  and  the  communion  of  the  Christian  church 
still  remained  unbroken.  And  such  a^s(feis  were  spreading  in 
the  church  of  Corinth,  as  appears  plainly  from  i.  Cor.  xr.  19, 
ox»Vf*ara,  as  they  are  termed  in  ver.  18  ;  having  no  relation  to 
doctrine  and  opinions,  but  manifested  in  strifes,  arising  from 
the  circumstance,  that  one  was  of  the  party  of  Paul,  another 
of  Peter,  another  of  Apollos  ;  as  appears  from  Ch.  i.  12.  And 
accordingly  St.  Paul  says,  SsT  ya^  xai  ai^idsig,  x.  r.  X. ;  since 
there  was  some  advantage  attending  them,  viz.  iVa  s»  ^oxifAo/, 
&c.,  i,  e.  that  the  good  might  become  conspicuous,  and 
be  sepai'ated  from  the  wicked.  And  strifes  of  the  same  kind 
are  to  be  understood,  in  Gal.  v.  20.  The  word  aJ'^stf*?,  how- 
ever, occurs  in  a  sense  somewhat  different,  in  ii.  Pet.  ii.  I, 
where  it  signifies  any  mischievous  opinion  ;  not  by  itself,  in- 
deed, but  with  the  word  d^raiXsjag  following  it.  But  -jra^sirfcc- 
ysiv  (in  this  word,  again,  the  preposition  has  no  force,  as  is 
evident  from  the  usage  of  Polybius,  iv.  20.)  ai^s'tfstj  d^wXe/a?, 
i.  €,  dcroXXu/jt-svacT,  signifies :  to  devise  false  and  pernicious 
opinions,  and  to  obtrude  them  upon  others. — Thus  much 
about  heresies  in  general.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  the  in- 
stances of  heretics,  which  are  adduced  for  the  purpose  of 
lessening  the  force  of  the  above  mentioned  testimony.  Now, 
in  my  opinion,  neither  Alexander  and  Hymenaeus,  nor  the 
Nicolaitans,  ought  to  have  been  cited :  the  former,  because 
they  were  merely  individuals,  and  did  not  form  whole  sects ; 
the  latter,  because  their  oflfence  appears  to  have  consisted  rather 
in  their  practice,  than  in  their  doctrine.  Nor  is  the  instance 
of  Simon  Magus  at  all  in  point.  The  ancient  ecclesiastical 
writers,  indeed,  place  him  with  one  consent  on  the  list  of 
heretics ;  nay,  even  consider  him  as  the  father  of  heretics, 
and  the  founder  of  all  the  sects  which  afterwards  arose,  but 
especially  of  the  Gnostics.  I  cannot,  however,  agree  with 
them  in  this  opinion.     I  can  readily  allow,  that  -he  was  the 

37 


290  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

first  who  created  disturbance  among  Christians  by  the  dis^ 
semination  of  false  doctrines ;  but  I  cannot  as  easily  admit, 
that  he  ought  to  be  termed  a  heretic.  I  think  rather,  with 
MosHEiM,  Instit.  H.  E.  Maj.  p.  394  ss.,*  that  he  is  to  be  styled 
a  most  wicked,  inveterate,  and  impudent  opponent  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  who  labored  to  weaken,  unsettle,  and  entirely 
overthrow  the  foundations  of  our  holy  religion  ;  setting  him- 
self up  for  the  Messiah,  as  did  also  his  teachers  or  disciples, 
Dositheus  and  Menander.  Josephus  informs  us,  Ant.  Jud. 
L.  XX.  c.  7.  §.  6,  Ed.  Oxon.  1720,  and  De  Bell.  Jud.  L.  ii.  c. 
13,  §.  4,  that  there  was,  at  that  period,  a  great  number  of 
mad  men  of  this  kind.  Mosheim  has  the  same  opinion  in  re- 
gard to  Dositheus,  1.  c.  p.  376  ;t  and  it  has  been  clearly  as- 
serted by  Origen,  L.  i.  adv.  Cels.  p.  44,  and  L.  vi.  p.  282. 
Ed.  Spencer.  Cantab.  1677.  The  most  satisfactory  evidence, 
however,  on  this  point,  is  to  be  found  in  Tertullian,  de 
Praescrip.  adv.  Haer.  c.  46,  where  he  says,  "  Simon  Magus 
ausus  est  summam  se  dicere  virtutem,  id  est,  summum  Deum. 
— Post  hunc  Menander,  Discipulus  ipsius,  eadem  dicens,  qua^ 
Simon  ipse :  quicquid  se  Simon  dixerat,  hoc  se  Menander 
esse  dicebat,  negans,  habere  posse  quenquam  salutem,  nisi  in 
nomine  suo  baptizatus  fuisset,  rell. ;"  "  Simon  Magus  presum- 
ed to  style  himself  the  supreme  power,  i.  e,  the  supreme  God. 
— After  him  came  his  disciple,  Menander,  avowing  the  same 
tenets  as  Simon  himself;  whatever  titles  Simon  had  given 
himself,  these  Menander  also  assumed,  denying  that  any  could 
'be  saved,  except  those  who  were  baptized  in  his  name,  &c.'* 
I  would  observe,  by  the  way,  that  the  opinion  which  has  been 
held  by  modern  writers,  and  advanced  also  by  some  ancient 
ecclesiastical  writers,  that  this  Simon  professed  many  doc- 
trines in  common  with  the  Gnostic  sects,  does  not,  in  the 
first  place,  necessarily  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  the 
founder  of  these ;  and,  in  the  next  place,  the  things  which  ai'e 
related  in  general  respecting  Simon,  by  Iren^us,  adv.  Haer. 


*  [  Cent.  I.  P.  n.  Ch.  v.  Sect.  11,  of  Mosheim's  Eccl.  Hist,  by  Mac- 

LAIITE. — Tr.  ] 
^  I  Ibid.  sect.  10.— TV.  3 


^91 

L.  I.  c.  20 ;  the  Author  of  the  Apostol.  Constitut.  L.  vi.  c.  8, 
9 ;  in  the  Recog.  of  Clem.  Rom.  L.  i.  c.  19  s.  74.  L.  ii.  iik 
Homil.  Clem.  ii.  m;  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  L.  ii.  c.  13. 
14 ;  and  othei-s,  are,  for  the  most  part,  if  we  except  what  St. 
liuke  tells  us  in  the  Acts,  and  if,  indeed,  there  were  not  two 
persons  of  the  name  of  Simon, — obscure,  doubtful,  and  al- 
together uncertain  ;  some  of  them  even  trifling  and  ridiculous ; 
as,  for  example,  what  is  related  by  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  1 ; 
so  that  nothing  can  be  advanced  on  the  subject,  which  carries 
with  it  the  least  appearance  of  truth.  I  have  entered  into 
this  brief  discussion,  in  order  to  shew,  that  there  is  nothing  ei- 
ther in  the  word  aJ'^stfij  which  occurs  in  Scripture,  or  in  the 
instances  of  Alexander  and  others,  which  makes  against  my 
opinion;  or  is  calculated  to  render  Firmilian's  testimony 
doubtful,  and  to  expose  it  to  the  suspicion  of  falsehood  :  but 
rather  that  it  can  thence  be  fully  established,  that  the  heresies 
of  the  Gnostics  arose  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles ;  and  cer- 
tainly did  not,  before  that  period,  prove  injurious  to  the  Chris 
tian  church  and  doctrine. 

I  add  lastly  the  authority  of  Tertullian,  who  expressly 
denies  that  the  Gnostics  arose  at  the  period  commonly  assign- 
ed. The  passage  most  in  point  occurs  in  his  work  entitled 
*  De  praescrip.  adv.  haer.'  c.  29  s. ;  where  Tertullian  makes 
use  of  the  same  argument  employed  by  Clemens  Alex,  in  the 
passage  above-mentioned  ;  namely,  shewing  the  antiquity  of 
the  Christian  religion,  and  the  novelty  of  heresies.  The  first 
argument  he  adopts,  is  drawn  from  the  nature  of  the  case. 
"  Ante  Christiani,"  he  says,  "  quam  Christus  inventus  ?  ante 
haereses,  quam  vera  doctrina  ?  Sed  enim  in  omnibus  Veritas 
imaginem  antecedit ;  postremo  similitudo  succedit.  Caeterum 
satis  ineptum,  ut  prior  doctrina  haeresis  habeatur,  &c."  "  Were 
Christians  found  before  Christ  came  ?  were  there  heresies 
before  the  true  doctrine  ?  For,  m  all  cases,  truth  precedes 
the  resemblance  of  it ;  the  likendSs  comes  afterwards.  It  is 
absurd  enough,  then,  to  maintain  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
heretics  came  first  in  order,  6lc"  He  then  goes  on  to  treat 
of  the  authors  of  the  different  heresies,  c.  30 ;  and  shews 
that  they  were  all  subsequent  to  the  time  of  the  Apostles. 


!!J92  NO  TKACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

"  tJbi  tunc  Marcion,  Ponticus  nauclerus,  Stoicae  studiosus ' 
Ubi  tunc  Valentinus,  Platonicse  sectator  ?  Nam  constat,  illos 
neque  adeo  olim  fuisse.  *  Antonini  fere  principatu  et  in  catho- 
licam  pene  doctrinam  credidisse,  apud  ecclesiam  Romanen- 
sena,  sub  episcopatu  Eleutheri  benedicti,  donee  ob  inquietam 
eorum  semper  curiositatem  semel  et  iterum  ejecti."  "  Where 
was  Marcion  then,  the  pilot  of  Pontus,  the  disciple  of  the 
Stoic  philosophy  ?  Where  was  Valentine,  the  follower  of 
Platonism  ?  For  it  is  well  known  that  they  were  not  of 
so  ancient  a  date  ;  and  that,  somewhere  in  the  reign  of  An- 
toninus, they  believed  in  the  doctrine  which  almost  universally 
prevailed  -,  being  of  the  church  of  Rome,  during  the  episcopate 
of  the  blessed  Eleutherus,  until,  on  account  of  their  continually 
restless  inquisitiveness,  they  were  once  and  then  a  second  time 
ejected."  And  then  he  proceeds  as  follows  :  "  Si  Marcion 
Novum  Testamentum  a  Vetere  separavit,  posterior  est  eo,  quod 
separavit ;  quia  separare  non  posset,  nisi  quod  unitum  fuit." 
"  If  Marcion  separated  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old,  he 
must  have  come  after  that  which  he  thus  separated  ;  he  could 
not  have  separated  what  had  never  been  united."  He  re- 
fers, moreover,  to  the  churches  and  bishops  of  the  Gnostics?, 
who  were  neither  appointed  by  the  Apostles,  nor  reached  up 
to  their  time.  "  Caeterum,"  says  he,  c.  32,  "  si  quae  audent 
interserere  se  aetati  Apostolicae,  ut  ideo  videantur  ab  Apostolis 
traditae,  quia  sub  Apostolis  fuerunt :  possumus  dicere,  edant 
ergo  origines  ecclesiarum  suarum,  evolvant  ordinem  episco- 
porum  suorum,  ita  per  successiones  ab  initio  decurrentem, 
ut  primus  ille  episcopus  aliquem  ex  Apostolis  vel  Apostolicis 
viris  habuerit  auctorem  et  antecessorem. — Ita  omnes  haereses 
probent  se  quaqua  putant  Apostolicas.  Sed  adeo  nee  sunt, 
nee  possunt  probare,  quod  non  sunt,  &c."  "But  if  any 
of  these  presume  to  make  themselves  contemporary  with  the 
Apostles,  that  they  may  thereby  appear  to  have  been  trans- 
mitted from  them,  because'they  were  during  their  time  ;  we 
may  say,  let  them  shew,  then,  the  origin  of  their  churches, 
let  them  unfold  the  series  of  their  bishops,  coming  down  in 
such  a  regular  succession  from  the  beginning,  that  their 
first  bishop  was  constituted  and  preceded  by  some  one  of  the 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  ^3 

Apostles,  or  some  Apostolic  peraou. — In  this  manner  let  all 
heresies  prove  that  they  are,  as  they  suppose  themselves, 
Apostolic.  But  they  are  not  such,  and  therefore  cannot  prove 
it,  &c."  At  the  end  of  c.  33,  he  uses  the  very  authority  of 
the  Apostles,  v^ho  pointed  out  by  name  the  enemies  of  the 
Christian  religion  w^ho  vsrere  then  in  existence ;  but  among 
these  did  not  make  any  mention  at  all  of  the  Valentinians,  the 
Marcionites,  or  the  Gnostics  ;  from  v^^hich  he  infers,  that  the 
opinions  of  these  were  subsequent  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostles.  C.  34,  he  says,  "  Eligant  igitur  sibi  tempora  uni- 
versae  hsereses,  quae  quando  fuerint ;  dum  non  intersit,  qtee, 
quando  de  veritate  non  sint ;  utique,  quae  ab  Apostohs  no- 
minatsB  non  fuerunt,  sub  Apostohs  fuisse  non  possunt.  Si  enim 
fuissent,  nominarentur  et  ipsae,  ut  et  ipsae  coercendae.  Quse 
vero  sub  Apostohs  fuerunt,  in  sua  nominatione  damnantur." 

Such,  then,  are  those  testimonies  of  the  ancient  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers,  by  which  I  designed  to  prove,  that  the  philosopliy 
of  the  Gnostics  did  not  reach  as  far  back  as  the  age  which  is 
commonly  assigned  to  it.  I  shall  now  proceed  to  another 
argument,  by  which  to  strengthen  this  opinion,  and  to  shew 
the  falsehood  of  the  opposite  position.  The  sentiment  which 
I  oppose  cannot  be  proved  by  a  single  testimony  of  the  wri- 
ters of  the  First  Century ;  but  they  observe  in  their  writings 
a  profound  silence  on  the  subject !  I  will  not  deny,  that  this 
species  of  argument,  derived  from  the  silence  of  writers,  h 
not  capable  of  a  universal  application,  and  that,  even  in  the  in- 
stance before  us,  many  allow  little,  or  no  weight  at  all  to  it ; 
and  I  admit  that,  in  many  cases,  this  is  a  correct  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding: but  not,  when  writers  who  are  diligent,  and  worthy 
of  credit,  are  engaged  in  relating  facts  of  this  kind,  and  when 
the  thing  is  itself  of  such  a  nature,  that  from  its  notoriety  it 
could  not  have  been  unknown,  nor,  from  the  very  design  of 
the  history,  could  it  have  been  omitted  without  fear  of  blame 
by  the  writers  of  the  age  to  which  it  belongs,  when  they  had 
a  reason  and  an  opportunity  for  mentioning  it.  If  I  shall  be 
able  to  shew,  then,  that  such  was  the  case  in  the  present  in- 
stance, I  trust  that  this  kind  of  argument  will  not  be  deemed 
altoj^ether  without  weight.    It  is  plain,  and  appears,  indeed. 


2i94  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

from  the  observations  already  made,  that  the  authors  and 
supporters  of  the  opposite  opinion  suppose,  that  the  Oriental 
and  Gnostic  philosophy  not  only  began  before  the  time  of 
Christ,  but  was  besides  this  in  such  reputation,  was  so  cele- 
brated and  favorably  received  through  all  the  world,  as  to 
h£ve  admirers  and  disciples  both  very  numerous  in  multitude, 
and  distinguished  for  the  elegance  of  their  genius  and  learn- 
ir^.  Now  it  is  altogether  improbable,  that  the  ancient  wri- 
ters would  be  silent  upon  such  a  subject  as  this,  those  of  them 
especially,  who  were  treating  of  philosophical  and  theological 
subjects  :  we  might  rather  expect,  that  in  their  works,  nume- 
rcus  as  they  were,  and  of  such  a  kind,  they  would  enter  into 
considerable  discussion  respecting  it,  as  being  something  new 
aid  strange ;  or,  at  any  rate,  would  say  a  word  in  mention  of 
it.  But,  as  I  have  already  said,  there  is  nothing  of  the  kind 
tc  be  found  in  any  Greek,  Latin,  or  Jewish  writer.  In  the 
former,  indeed,  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers,  not  the  faintest 
shadow  of  any  trace  of  the  Oriental  or  Gnostic  philosophy 
among  the  Asiatic  Greeks  is  discovered,  which  would  lead  us 
to  suppose  that  they  knew  any  thing  about  it ;  nor  has  it  been 
found  possible,  even  to  this  day,  to  adduce  one  testimony  from 
all  antiquity,  which  carries  with  it  even  any  semblance  of  truth. 
Some,  I  know,  are  cited,  but  we  shall  presently  see  to  what 
they  amount.  Luci  an  handled  all  kinds  of  philosophers  very 
severely  ;  but  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  he  let  the  Gnostic 
philosphers  pass  without  censure ;  or  rather,  he  made  no 
miention  of  them  ;  which  certainly  would  not  have  been  the 
case,  if  any  thing  had  been  known  about  them  at  that  time  in 
Asia :  unless,  perhaps,  he  did  this  out  of  regard  for  them, 
being  himself  strongly  attached  to  that  excellent  philosophy ! 
But  much  more  remarkable  is  it,  that  a  subject  of  such  im- 
portance as  this  was  entirely  passed  over  by  the  Jewish  wri- 
ters, and  by  those  of  them  most  worthy  of  credit,  viz.  Josephus 
and  Philo.  As  these  authors  were  extremely  diligent  in  re- 
cording every  thing  relating  to  the  Jews,  and  were  very  learn- 
ed in  the  Greek  language,  they  must  have  been  mtimately  ac- 
quainted with  the  Gnostic  philosophy ;  and  would  certainly 
have  mentioned  it,  if  it  had  been  so  extensively  known  and  dis- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  295 

seminated  in  Palestine,  the  country  of  Josephus,  and  in  Egypt, 
where,  according  to  the  opinion  of  very  learned  men,  Philo 
lived. 

It  is  well  known  with  what  minuteness  Josephus  treated  of 
all  the  sects  of  the  Jews,  and  related  their  history,  doctrines, 
and  opinions  ;  with  the  exception  of  the  Therapeutae,  whose 
school  was  established  only  in  Egypt.  He  did  not  even  omit 
the  Zealots,  although  they  were  rather  a  faction  among  the 
Jews,  than  a  sect.  But  he  has  not  said  a  word  respecung 
the  Oriental  or  Gnostic  philosophy.  Now  is  it  likely,  that 
Josephus  would  have  passed  by  this  philosophy  and  its  fol- 
■  lowers,  if  at  that  period,  and  for  a  short  time  before,  it  kad 
been  known  and  also  cultivated  in  Judea  ?  Would  it  not 
have  been  a  culpable  omission  on  his  part,  to  say  nothng 
about  a  subject  so  important  as  the  Gnostic  philosophy  is 
thought  to  have  been  ?  But  he  was  unacquainted  with  it,  aid 
did  not  understand  it !  On  the  contrary,  he  did  acquire  a  knov- 
ledge  of  it,  during  his  stay  in  Egypt,  asBaucKER  supposes,  X 
II.  p.  709.  Yet  he  has  not  said  a  word  respecting  it,  nor  ha? 
given  us  the  faintest  trace  of  it.  He  himself,  moi-eover,  re 
lates,  that,  saving  the  education  peculiar  to  his  own  country, 
he  bestowed  his  attention  exclusively  upon  Greek  learning, 
although  it  was  the  custom  of  his  nation  to  despise  every 
thing  foreign.  Antiq.  Jud.  Lib.  xx,  at  the  end.  Yet  he  does 
not  mention  the  Oriental  and  Gnostic  philosophy. 

We  must  come  to  the  same  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  au-^ 
thority  of  Philo,  who  is  also  silent  about  this  philosophy  in 
those  places,  where  he  would  have  been  no  less  inexcusable  in 
omitting  it  than  Josephus :  and  further,  if  he  had  had  any  know- 
ledge of  it,  he  would  certainly  have  mentioned  it  in  his  work 
*  de  Vita  Contemplativa,'  throughout  the  whole  of  which  book 
he  has  treated  of  the  Therapeutae,  who  are  thought  by  some 
of  the  learned  to  have  agreed  in  many  respects  with  the 
Gnostics.  He  has  nowhere,  however,  mentioned  it,  although 
he  lived  and  wrote  in  Egypt,  where,  in  the  opinion  of  learned 
men,  the  Oriental  and  Gnostic  philosophy  began,  and  was  in 
very  great  repute ;  and  used,  and  particularly  delighted  in 
the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation,  from  which  the  Gno«- 


296  NO  TRACES  or  THE  GNOSTICS 

tic  philosophy  was  derived,  and  of  which  it  ahnost  altogether 
consisted.     I  am  indeed  aware,  that  some  very  learned  men, 
as  Mosheim,  Brucker,  Michaelis,*  and  Walch,  suppose  that 
the  Essenes  were  those  Oriental  philosophers,  at  least  that 
they  had  many  things  in   common  with  them  ;  respecting 
whom  both  Josephus  and  Philo  have  treated  at  large,  in  whose 
books  there  are  also  traces  of  these  philosophers.     Two  ar- 
guments, however,  may  be  urged  against  this  opinion.   In  the 
first  place,  Josephus  and  Philo,  with  one  consent,  class  the  Es- 
senes among  the  Jewish  sects.     The  principal  places  in  Jo- 
SEfHus,  are  Lib.  n.  c.  8.  §.  2,  de  Bell.  Jud.,  Ed.  Oxon.  1720, 
wkere  he  says  expressly,  that  among  the  three  sects  of  the 
Jews  are  the  Essenes,  who  are  Jews  by  birth,  and  pay  great 
attention  to  the  cultivation  of  mutual  affection  ;  and  Ant, 
J^d.  L.  XV.  c.  10.  XIII.  c.  10  ;  but  particularly   Lib.   xviii.  c. 
^,  where  he  says,  lovSaiais  rpsTg  s/vai  h  rov  cr'avu  dp-xam  twv  *aT^i- 
(Jj   Twv    Etftf'Jivwv,  xa«   rriv   rdv   2a55ojxaiwv,  t^(tojv  ds  (piXo(fo<pwv  twv 
(^apjfl'aiwv.     Philo  expressly  states  the  same  thing  in  several 
i)laces  ;  for  example, '  Quod  om-  prob.  Lib.'  p.  876,  Ed.  Franc. 
1691,  where   he   thus  speaks  ;  Xsyovrai  Tivsg  cra^'   auror^  (i.  e. 
lo\)8a'm$)  ovofAtt  Etftfajoi :  "  there  are  certain  persons  among  them, 
(i.  e.  among  the  Jews,)  called  Essenes."     But,  m  the  next 
)  place,  facts  are  opposed  to  this  opinion  ;  for  the  philosophy 
under  discussjon  rejected  the  whole  law,  while,  according  to 
Philo,  in  the  passage  just  referred  to,  the  Essenes  were  very 
much  attached  to  it ;  and,  moreover,  it  inculcated  so  many 
false   and  pernicious  opinions  respecting    God  and   divine 
things,  that  neither  a  disciple  of  the  Essene  school,  nor  any 


*  Einleit.  ins  N.  T.  P.  ii.  p.  1247,  Gott.  1788.  His  words  are  these : 
'<  The  scattered  observations  made  by  Philo  and  Josephus  respecting  the 
Essenes,  may  all  be  explained  from  the  principles  of  that  philosophy, 
which  I  might  briefly  term  the  Oriental  or  Gnostic  ;  though  it  is  to  be 
observed,  that  the  Essenes  did  not  adopt  all  the  peculiarities  of  this  phi- 
losophy, but  principally  the  moral  part  of  it,  and  truly  a  gloomy  and 
monastic  morality.  At  least,  Philo  is  their  great  eulogist,  who,  in  other 
matters  relating  to  doctrine,  is  a  violent  opponent  of  the  Gnostics." — 
[See  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol.  iv.  p.  82.  Lond.  180?.— Tr.] 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  397 

Other  Jew,  could,  without  losing  liis  purity  of  doctrine,  approve 
and  follow  it. 

But  Philo,  although  he  either  designedly  abstained  frowi 
mentioning  the  Oriental  and  Gnostic  philosophy,  or  negligent- 
ly passed  it  by  as  being  improper  for  his  own  nation,  yet  in 
particular  opinions  followed  the  principles  of  that  philosophy ,, 
and  gives  frequent  and  evident  marks  of  this  in  his  writings. 
I  know,  indeed,  that  this  assertion  is  made  by  learned  men^ 
particularly  by  Brucker,  in  order  to  prove,  that  traces  of  the 
Oriental  and  Gnostic  philosophy  are  not  altogether  wanting 
in  the  works  of  Philo.  But,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  injpossible 
to  discover  for  what  reason  Philo  observed  an  utter  silence 
about  this  kind  of  philosophy.  Because  he  thought  it  did  no 
credit  to  his  nation  ?  Such  a  reason  as  this  amounts  to  no- 
thing, and,  in  my  opinion,  ought  never  to  have  been  mention- 
ed :  that  Philo,  forsooth,  considered  it  as  unworthy  of  his 
character  and  his  nation,  to  give  any  account  of  philosophers 
and  of  polite  learning,  which  he  himself,  so  far  from  despising, 
admired  and  cultivated  to  such  a  degi'ee,  that  he  may  rightly 
be  ranked  among  the  most  successful  imitators  of  the  more 
elegant  learning  of  the  ancients  ;  so  much  so,  that,  if  he  did  not 
quite  come  up  to  it,  he  seems  to  have  approached  very  near, 
and,  in  acuteness  of  mind,  and  elegance  of  language,  to  have 
borne  a  close  resemblance  to  Plato  and  Demosthenes.  In 
the  next  place,  I  should  like  to  see  the  passages,  where  Mosg 
heim  and  Brucker  have  thought  they  discovered  traces  in 
Philo  of  the  Oriental  and  Gnostic  philosophy,  expressly  point- 
ed out  by  them  ;  that  we  might  have  something  definite  on 
the  subject.  I  perceived,  indeed,  when  I  read  that  very 
learned,  but  somewhat  too  prolix  work,  the  "  Hist.  Crit.  Phi- 
losoph.,"  that  passages  of  the  kind  referred  to  are  here  and 
there  cited  by  Brucker  ;  whose  principal  aim  is  to  establish 
the  opinion,  that  Philo  was  veiy  fond  of  the  Oriental  and 
Gnostic  philosophy,  and  that  this  is  very  evident  from  his 
writings.  But  the  reply  to  these  is  easy.  For;  in  order  to 
let  us  see  with  clearness  the  main  particulars  of  a  man's  doc- 
trine, and  to  what  school  he  was  attached,  it  is  not  enough  to 
adduce  passages  of  any  kind  whatever :  but.  in  the  first  place. 
'       '  '   *  38 


298  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

they  must  be  doctrinal,  i.  e.  places  in  which  the  author  is  de- 
livering his  own  doctrines  ;  not  historical,  that  is,  where  he  is 
relating  the  sentiments  and  opinions  of  others  :  and,  in  the 
second  place,  they  must  be  plain  and  clear.  Now  the 
places  cited  by  Brucker  do  not  appear  to  be  of  this  charac- 
ter ;  being  either  historical,  or  obscure  and  doubtful.  That 
I  may  not  appear  to  accuse  unjustly  this  learned  man,  I  shall 
endeavor  to  prove  my  assertion.  To  the  first  class  belongs 
that  passage  to  which  he  refers  in  Vol.  vi.  p.  415  ;  conip.  Vol. 
11.  p.  772  s.  It  is  in  p.  876  s.  Ed.  Franc.  1691,  of  Philo's 
work  entitled  *  Quod  om.  prob.  lib.,'  where  he  is  treating  of 
the  Essenes,  and  is  handling  the  subject  historically  ;  and  re- 
lates their  manners,  rites,  and  customs  ;  and  says  that  they 
leave  to  others  the  dialectic  part  of  philosophy,  as  being  not 
necessary  for  the  formation  of  a  virtuous  character  ;  bestow- 
ing their  attention  on  that  alone  which  gives  rules  of  life  and 
morals  ;  that  they  examine  every  thing  by  the  threefold  law, 
which  inculcates  the  love  of  God,  of  virtue,  and  of  men  ; 
that  they  have  great  reverence  for  God  ;  despise  riches  and 
honors  ;  live  continently  ;  and  other  things  of  the  same  kind. 
What  trace  is  there,  I  would  ask,  of  the  Oriental  philosophy, 
in  such  a  passage  as  this  ?  and  even  if  there  were  any,  it 
cannot  be  thereby  proved,  that  Philo  was  a  follower  of  it  ; 
since  the  passage  is  not  doctrinal,  but  historical,  and  is  not 
at -all,  therefore,  to  the  purpose.  But  how  Brucker  came 
to  think  so,  may  be  easily  conjectured  ;  for  he  thought  that 
the  Essenes  w^ere  those  very  philosophers  themselves. 

To  the  other  class  of  passages,  that  is,  obscure,  doubtful, 
and  therefore  uncertain,  belong  those  places  cited  by  Brucker 
and  others,  in  which  Philo  discourses  concerning  the  "kdyog. 
As  the  Gnostics  trifled  a  great  deal  about  this  subject,  there- 
fore Philo  himself  was  also  a  Gnostic  !  Those  who  have  ad- 
vanced this  opinion  did  not  recollect,  that  some  consider  this 
use  of  the  term  Xoyog  as  peculiar  to  Philo  ;  while  others  think 
it  was  borrowed  from  the  diction  and  refinement  of  Plato^ 
whom  Philo  copied  :  and  that  this  very  difference  of  opinion 
shews  the  obscurity  and  difficulty  of  these  passages ;  a  dif- 
ficulty which  verv  learned  men  have  not  hesitated  to  acknow- 


iN  THE  N^iW  TESTAHENT.  290 

lodge.  Neither  is  it  enough  to  say,  that,  because  Phiio  main- 
tained one  or  two  opinions,  or  modes  of  phraseology,  in  com- 
mon with  the  Gnostics,  he  learned  and  adopted  them  from 
these.  So,  however,  Brucker  thinks,  Tom.  ni.  p.  385 ;  and 
he  thence  proves,  that  Philo  was  attached  to  the  Gnostic  and 
Oriental  philosophy,  since,  in  his  work  '  de  Mundi  Opif.,'  p. 
3  s.  Ed.  Franc.  1691,  he  agrees  with  Jamblichus,  *  de 
Myster.  iEgypt.'  Sect.  v.  c.  23,  p.  183,  and  derives  from 
Demiurge  the  origin  of  the  world  and  of  matter.  But,  in 
the  first  place,  in  regard  to  the  opinion  itself,  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  this  in  the  words  of  Philo.  For  he  says  nothing 
more,  than  that  God,  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  formed  to 
himself,  first  of  all,  an  intelligible  image  of  it,  that  he  might 
complete  the  corporeal  world  after  the  pattern  of  that 
which  was  incorporeal,  and  most  like  to  God  ;  this  more  re- 
cent one  being  a  resemblance  of  the  older,  and  being  intend- 
ed to  embrace  as  many  sensible  kinds  of  objects,  as  there 
were  intelligible  kinds  in  the  other.  His  words  are  these : 
Oso^  ^ov\ri6sts  <r6v  oparov  rouTev/  xetffji/ov  ^rjfJMou^yijo'aj,  cff osfSTU'Tr'ou  rov 
vorjTov,  i'va  ^pCifisvog  difujiiarc}  xui  '$ssosiSs(fTarui  'gapoidzl'y^a.riy  rov 
tfWfAaTixov  difSpyacfriTai,  'sfps&QvTSpou  vsdrspov  d'Tr'sjxo'vifl'fjLa,  ro(favTa  «»'£- 
pis^ovra  ai(f6yiTa  ys'vij,  oda.itzp  ^v  Ixsivw  \ot\ra»  What  is  there,  I 
would  ask,  in  this  place,  about  Demiurge,  or  the  origin  of  the 
world  and  of  matter  from  him,  or  about  seons,  sephirs,  ema- 
native  virtues,  and  other  things  of  that  kind,  which  Brucker 
thinks  it  contains  ?  Philo  speaks  of  God  in  a  human  way  ; 
and,  as  what  follows  clearly  shews,  compares  him  with  a 
king,  who,  if  he  has  undertaken  to  build  a  city,  first  con- 
ceives in  his  mind  and  thoughts  that  which  he  terms  the  in- 
telligible city,  voYjri^v  croXiv,  and  then  orders  the  city  which  he 
has  thus  conceived  to  be  built  ;  this  last  being  called  by  Phi- 
lo the  corporeal  city,  cwfAaTwaj.  He  himself  explains  his 
meaning  more  clearly  in  p.  5,  where  he  says  ;  ou^evav  eVejov 
hitai  Tov  vo>jTov  sfvai  xorf^ov,  ^  ^£ou  Xo/ov  -^Srj  xotrfAotfoiouvro^  oudi 
/ap  v}  voriT-^  <3ro'Xi5  sVepov  ti  kth,  -?}  h  tou  d/»xi^sxTovog  XoyjtffAoj  ''ih  t^v 
voiir75v  *6Xiv  xri^iiv  5<avosfjLsvou.  There  is,  therefore,  no  reason 
for  supposing,  that  Philo  in  that  place  referred  ta  the  doC" 


?JO0  NO  TRACTiS  OF    THE  GNOSTICS 

Irines  of  the  Gnostics.  If  the  reader,  however,  prefers  the 
opinion,  that  he  had  some  particular  philosophy  in  view,  I 
should  rather  think  it  to  be  the  barbarian,  which,  according 
to  Clem.  Alexand.,  Strom,  v.  p.  593,  recognized  a  xoC/aos 
vo»)To5  and  a<V^7]To?5  the  former  being  the  dp-^^srvifog,  and  the 
latter  an  e/jcwv  tou  xaXoufts'vou  'xapaSsiyij.ards  ;  and  which  opinion 
he  classes  among  those,  borro^ved  by  the  Greeks  from  the 
Barbarians.  Brucker  does  not  seem  to  have  been  altogether 
opposed  to  this  opinion,  and,  on  this  account,  appears  some- 
what inconsistent  with  himself ;  for,  in  another  place,  viz. 
Tom.  n.  p.  802,  he  thinks  that  these  ideas  are  to  be  regarded 
as  improved  Platonism.  Perhaps,  however,  in  the  passage 
above  mentioned,  he  was  deceived  by  the  word  ^ri^io'jpyog, 
which  Philo  uses  in  the  place  cited,  and  in  a  thousand  others  ; 
and  which  it  is  surprising  that  even  some  among  the 
ancient  ecclesiastical  writers,  considered  as  unsuitable  to 
God.  This  w^ord,  however,  ought  not  to  be  offensive,  since 
it  is  applied  to  God  not  only  by  profane  writers,  but  also  in 
the  sacred  Scriptures  ;  as  Heb.  xi.  10.  Comp.  Elsner,  Obs. 
ISac.  Tom.  i.  p.  365. 

I  cannot  pass  by  another  passage,  particularly  worthy  of 
ijotice,  in  w^hich  Philo  is  thought  to  have  followed  the  Oriental 
philosophy.  It  occurs  in  his  work  '  de  Great.  Princ'  p.  728,  Ed. 
Franc.  1691,  where  there  is  found  a  description  of  the  creation 
of  the  world,  in  which,  among  other  things,  he  uses  these  words : 
0sog  Ttt  fji.7]  ovra  ixaXstfsv  slg  to  s/vai,  and,  sx  (fxoTovg  cpCig  ipyoctfa^svog  ; 
which,  to  my  great  surprise,  Brucker,  Tom.  ii.  p.  884, 
thinks  cannot  be  understood,  "  unless,  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Cabbalists,  which  arose  in  Egypt,  we  maintain, 
that  divine  emanations,  when  they  removed  to  a  great  dis- 
tance from  the  supreme  light,  became  darkness,  on  account 
of  being  deprived  of  light  ;  but  that,  through  Sephiroth,  and 
the  canal  of  Adam  Kadmon,  a  ray  of  light  was  transmitted 
into  the  darkness,  and  thus  the  material  w^orld  was  formed." 
But  is  not  the  passage  in  question  perfectly  intelligible,  without 
maintaining  any  such  thing  ?  To  me,  indeed,  this  doctrine  of 
the  Cabbalists,  so  strange  and  seraphic  in  its  character,  wraS 
'much  more  obscure  than  the  passage  of  Philo,  the  meaning  of 


IN  'nit  NEW  TESTAMENT.  ^Ol 

which,  without  thinking  any  thing  about  those  egregious  trifles^ 
I  perceived  as  soon  as  I  looked  at  it ;  recollecting  some 
places  to  be  met  with  in  the  sacred  books,  in  which  both 
those  phrases  occur.  The  first,  xaXsTv  tol  fA>j  ovra  slg  to  sivai.  oc- 
curs, with  a  slight  variation,  in  Rom.  iv.  17,  where  it  is,  xoCksTv 
ra  ju.^  ovfa  i}s  ovra  ;  though  this  place  of  St.  Paul  may  be  ex- 
plained in  another  way  also,  viz.  as  referring  to  future  things, 
and  the  foreknowledge  of  them.  But  there  is  another  place^ 
II.  Mace.  VII.  28,  where  the  phrase  to,  oux  ovra  occurs  in  the 
same  way  as  to,  ^iri  ovra  in  the  passage  of  Philo.  Now  the 
words  TO,  ovra,  in  common  Greek  language,  generally  signify 
"  the  things  which  are  ;"  and  ra  iiri  6Wa  the  same  as  f/^r^  s-k 
(pajvofxs'vwv,  in  Heb.  xi.  3,  which  is* for  h  it^n  (paivofAs'vwv ;  a  phrase 
particularly  frequent  with  Thucydides,  as  Markland,  who 
was  thoroughly  versed  in  the  Greek  language,  has  observed  in 
his  notes  on  Lysias.*  But  the  phrase  ra,  iiij  9a»vo/xiva  signifies, 
"  things  which  do  not  exist,  and  therefore  cannot  be  perceiv- 
ed ;"  in  which  sense  it  occurs  also  in  Joseph  us.  Ant.  Jud.  L. 
v.  c.  10.  Ed.  Oxon.  1720.  The  other  phrase  occurs,  in  a  simi- 
lar manner,  in  ii.  Cor.  iv.  6  ;  except  that  for  ipyu(faiisvog  (pwj  h 
(fxoTovg  there  is  the  Hebrew  form  of  expression  o  skwv  ex  tfxo- 
Tous  <?wj  XajXvj^ai  ;  evidently,  however,  in  the  same  sense.  In 
my  opinion,  therefore,  this  passage  of  Philo  is  clear  enough, 
without  bringng  any  light  upon  it  from  the  absurdities  of  the 
Gnostics  ;  and,  as  the  phrases  used  in  it  are  common  both 
with  the  sacred  writers  and  with  Philo,  it  is  evident,  that  they 
were  derived  not  from  the  usage  of  the  Gnostic  philosophers, 
but  from  the  customary  mode  of  speaking  of  the  Jews  ;  who, 
when  they  wished  to  describe  the  creation  of  things  -which 
before  had  no  existence,  said,  that  God  produced  things  that 
were  not,  or  ordered  light  to  arise  in  the  place  of  darkness. 

But  I  will  grant,  although,  as  I  have  shewn,  there  is  no  ne- 
cessity for  doing  so,  that  Pliilo  in  certain  opinions  agi-eed  with 
the  Gnostics.  Is  Philo,  I  would  ask,  on  that  account,  to 
be  called  a  Gnostic,  or  a  votary  and  defender  of  the  Orien- 


*  [  See  Lysias,  Ed.  Reiske,  Vol.  i.  p.  281.--7V.  ] 


^0^  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

tal  philosophy  ?  For  it  is  evident,  that  many  persons  ire- 
quently  entertain,  or  seem  to  entertain,  certain  opinions  in 
common  with  others,  which  they  can  by  no  means  be  said  to 
have  derived  from  them.  The  Pharisees,  according  to  Jose- 
phus,  held  in  common  with  the  Pelagians  the  doctrine,  that  a 
man  can  live  a  holy  life  by  his  own  strength  ;  and  thus  they 
were  the  first  broachers  of  Pelagianism.  But  did  they  learn 
this  from  the  school  of  Pelagius,  and  did  they  follow  him  ? 
Was  the  Pelagian  error  known,  and  diffused  far  and  wide,  at 
that  period  ?  The  case  is  precisely  the  same  in  regard  to 
Philo  ;  who  must  not  be  supposed  to  have  been  attached  to 
those  egregious  trifles,  for  so  they  ought  to  be  called  rather 
than  elegancies,  but'  rathef  to  have  learned  them  from  his 
own  Platonic  school.  The  Gnostics,  on  the  other  hand,  must 
be  said  to  have  derived  some  things  from  Philo  and  Plato,  if 
we  determine  that  there  is  any  agreement  between  their 
doctrine. 

It  ought,  however,  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  Gnostics  dif- 
fered in  many  respects  from  one  another,  and  that  we  have  no 
certain  knowledge  what  their  opinions  were  ;  our  information 
being  for  the  most  part  obscure  and  doubtful.  The  reason  of 
this  lies,  partly  in  the  Gnostic  tenets  themselves,  which  are  ex- 
ceedingly obscure  and  involved ;  and  partly  also  in  the  circum- 
stance, that  not  a  single  book  or  confession  of  theirs  is  extant, 
from  which  we  might  determine  something  certain  respecting 
their  opinions.  The  whole  matter,  therefore,  has  to  be  de- 
cided by  reference  to  the  works  of  others,  and  of  those,  more- 
over, who  have  undertaken  to  refute  the  Gnostics;  who, 
though  it  cannot  be  laid  to  their  charge,  that,  through  hatred 
or  ignorance,  they  branded  these  their  enemies  with  infamy, 
cannot,  however,  be  pronounced  altogether  free,  in  their  fre- 
quent controversies,  from  the  appearance  of  too  impetuous  a 
zeal,  and  of  the  frailty  belonging  to  human  nature.  The 
system  of  the  Gnostics  was  first  explained  by  Irenseus,  whose 
^  Books  against  Heresies '  are  among  the  sources,  from  which 
a  knowledge  of  the  Gnostic  heresies  is  to  be  derived.  He  has 
this  fault,  however,  in  common  with  others,  that  he  employs 
himself  rather  in  refuting,  than  simply  recording,  their  wicked 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  SO*^ 

tenets,  and  speaks  more  like  a  censor,  than  a  historian :  not 
to  say,  that  only  a  Latin  version  of  his  work  is  extant,  and 
that,  too,  a  baVbarous  and  uncouth  one  ;  the  author  of  whicli 
had  no  competent  knowledge  either  of  Greek  or  Latin,  and  is 
therefore  in  many  places  very  obscure.  Now  if  any  person 
liad  it  in  his  power  to  become  acquainted  with  these  difficul- 
ties, with  which,  so  far  as  its  tenets  and  character  are  concern- 
ed, the  philosophy  of  the  Gnostics  is  beset,  it  must  certainly 
have  been  those,  whose  studies  were  chiefly  devoted  to  its 
illustration.  These  persons,  accordingly,  have  not  hesitated 
to  avow  them  ;  as,  for  example,  Mosheim,  Instit.  H.  E.  maj. 
p.  142,  and  372 :  Brucker,  Tom.  ii.  p.  639  s.  where  he  thus 
speaks  ;  "  It  is  to  be  lamented  that  the  books  of  these  men 
are  no  longer  in  existence,  and  that  only  a  few  small  frag- 
ments remain  ;  and  also  that  the  ecclesiastical  writers,  per- 
plexed from  various  causes,  have  rendered  the  knowledge  of 
their  system  so  confused,  that  thus  far  little  can  be  said  re- 
specting this  philosophy,  and  its  true  reasonings  and  principles, 
which  is  not,  by  the  insuperable  difficulties  with  which  it  is 
surrounded,  nearly  proof  against  the  most  diligent  scrutiny." 
He  shews  the  same  thing  at  the  end  of  the  chapter,  through 
the  whole  of  §.  xi.  p.  651  s.,  and  Tom.  vi.  p.  402  s.  Mi- 
CHAELis  agrees  with  him,  in  his  Einleit. ;  and  also  Semler, 
who  in  his  *  Comment.  Hist,  de  ant.  Chr.  Statu,  p.  76,  says, 
"  It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  we  have  nothing  at  all  remaining 
of  the  writings  of  the  Gnostics,  except  scattered  and  obscure 
opinions,  of  which  we  find  it  hard  to  form  even  a  small  collec- 
tion, out  of  the  writings  of  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  and  others  of 
later  date."  But  if  this  be  the  fact,  how  vain  the  attempt  to 
determine  upon  the  agreement  that  exists,  between  Philo  and 
the  Gnostics. 

Some  things,  however,  remain  to  be  said,  respecting  the 
source  of  the  Gnostic  philosophy^  the  parent,  so  to  speak,  t>f  this 
offspring,  namely,  the  Oriental  philosophy,  which  I  might  very 
well  have  omitted,  had  I  not  thought  that  they  tended  strong- 
ly to  confirm  and  throw  light  upon  my  own  opinion.  The 
opinion  of  Mosheim  and  Brucker,  1  shall  give  in  their  own 
words :  "that  a  certain  philosophy  prevailed  through  almost  all 


304  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

the  provinces  of  Asia,  and  of  the  whole  East,  different  from  the 
Greek,  and  from  that  which  is  called  the  barbarian,  and  en- 
tirely opposite  to  it ;  and  that  this  was  not  only  known  to 
other  nations,  but  was  also  cultivated  by  them,  as  a  superior 
part  of  philosophy,  and  constituted  a  peculiar  kind  of  diviner 
wisdom  or  theology,  in  relation  to  God  and  the  world ;  and 
that  this  same  philosophy,  or  theology,  is  the  source  of  the 
Gnostic  philosophy."  Now  I  am  certainly  not  among  those, 
who  would  entirely  reject  the  testimonies  adduced  in  support  of 
this  opinion,  drawn  as  they  are  from  a  rich  store  of  profound 
erudition  ;  and  who  would  pertinaciously  deny  what  has  been 
advanced  by  two  men  of  such  distinguished  attainments.  Two 
things,  however,  I  propose  to  do ;  in  the  first  place,  to  the 
testimonies  cited  by  them  I  shall  oppose  others  ;  and,  in  the 
next  place,  I  shall  offer  some  doubts  in  regard  to  those  which 
Brucker  has  adduced,  Tom.  vi.  Hist.  Crit.  Phil.  p.  411  ss.  and 
which  are  the  most  prominent,  and  exceedingly  plausible. 

And  first,  one  suggestion  presents  itself,  which  I  cannot 
think  entirely  unworthy  of  attention,  that  all  the  ancient  ec- 
clesiastical writers  were  evidently  unacquainted  with  the 
Oriental  philosophy,  much  less  considered  it  as  the  source  of 
that  of  the  Gnostics  :  but,  on  the  contrary,  derived  the  origin 
of  the  latter  partly  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews,  which  at 
that  period  abounded  in  errors  and  trifles,  and  partly  from  the 
Greek  philosophy,  particularly  the  Platonic.  Clear  proofs  of 
this  statement  are  to  be  met  with  ;  and  how  they  are  to  be  re- 
conciled together,  will  be  seen  at  the  end  of  the  present  treatise. 
Among  those  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers,  who  considered 
the  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics  as  being  derived  from  the  idle 
fables  of  the  Jews,  is  particularly  to  be  mentioned  that  same 
Hegesippus,  of  whom  I  have  spoken  above  ;  who,  in  Euseb. 
H.  E.  IV.  22.  p.  142  s.,  clearly  shews,  that  the  heresies  of  Si- 
mon, Positheus,  Menander,  Marcion,  Carpocrates,  Valentine, 
Basihdes,  and  others,  who,  if  not  all,  yet  most  of  them,  were 
either  authors  of  the  Gnostic  absurdities,  or  their  promoters 
and  disciples,  at  least  the  persons  who  first  suggested  them, 
derived  their  origin  from  Juda3ism,  or,  to  use  his  own  words, 
from  the  seven  sects  of  the  Jews,  (which  are  then  enumerated. 


IN  THE  NKW  TESTAMENT. 


-m 


VIZ.  the  Essenes,  Galileans,  Hemerobaptists,  Masbotheatis, 
Samaritans,  Sadducees,  and  Pharisees,)  and  that  thence  arose 
false  prophets,  false  apostles,  and  false  Christs.  And  Has 
opinion  is  approved  of  by  Valesius,  in  loc.  Other  ancient  ec- 
clesiastical writers,  however,  and,  which  is  particularly  to  be 
borne  in  mind,  those  who  more  thoroughly  than  any  otheii?s 
investigated  and  refuted  the  Gnostic  doctrines,  viz.  Irenaeus, 
'  adv.  haer.'  L.  ii.  c.  14,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and  Tertullian, 
passages  from  whom  I  shall  presently  cite,  suppose  that  the 
Gnostics  learned  their  tenets  from  the  Greek  philosophers, 
but  particularly  from  Plato  ;  and  that  they  were  either  dis- 
ciples or  rivals  of  him,  and  altered  his  system  for  the  worse :  aii(t 
the  testimony  of  these  men  ought  to  be  considered  as  of  grea£ 
weight  for  this,  among  other  reasons,  that  they  had  come  over 
to  Christianity  from  the  schools  of  the  Platonic  philosophers. 
In  order  to  prove  their  point,  they  have  adduced  examples  by 
no  means  undeserving  of  attention  ;  and  have  instituted  com- 
parisons between  the  philosophers  referred  to,  which,  how- 
ever they  may  appear  to  some  to  be  a  little  far-fetched  and 
refined,  and  more  ingenious  than  correct,  yet  shew  that  it  was 
not  through  ignorance  of  the  Oriental  philosophy,  that  those 
writers  derived  the  heresies  of  the  Gnostics  from  the  Grecian 
philosophy.  Their  opinion,  moreover,  receives  great  proba- 
bility from  the  circumstance,  that  the  philosophy  of  the  Gnos- 
tics took  its  i-ise  in  the  same  regions,  in  which  that  of  the 
Greeks  almost  exclusively  prevailed.  This  has  led  many  verj^ 
learned  men  to  assent  to  their  decision ;  among  whom  are 
Massudt, Diss.  I.  in  Iren.  p.  93  s.  Vitringa,  Obss.  Sac.  p.  135 
ss.,  &c.  And,  in  truth,  it  is  very  surprising,  that  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus, in  so  lai'ge  a  work  as  the  *  Stromata,'  in  which  he  has 
so  many  admirable  discussions  respecting  the  Gentile  philo- 
sophy, does  not  utter  a  syllable  about  the  Oriental  philosophy. 
On  the  contraiy,  though  he  had  no  enmity  against  schools 
of  this  nature,  and  admired  to  the  gi-eatest  degree  every  kind 
of  liberal  learning,  (comp.  Strom.  L.  i.  p.  292.  and  297,  and 
the  very  honorable  testimony  borne  to  him  by  Eusebius,  H. 
E.  VI.  1, 13,  18.)  yet  he  constantly  speaks  of  the  philosophy 
of  the  Greeks  and  Barbarians  only,  except  in  one  passage^ 

39 


306  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

about  which  we  shall  see  presently ;  and  in  Lib.  i.  Strom,  p. 
302,  he  divides  all  learning  into  the  Grecian  and  Barbarian  only, 
and  shews  that  from  it  one  system  must  be  selected.  Hence 
we  may  infer,  I  think,  not  without  reason,  that  Clemens  knew 
nothing  about  any  Oriental  philosophy ;  but  rather  that  he 
traced  the  opinions  of  the  Gnostics,  which  are  usually  consi- 
dered as  being  derived  from  that  source,  to  the  Grecian  and 
Barbarian.  With  Clemens  Alex,  agrees  Tertullian,  *de 
praescrip.  adv.  ha?r.'  c.  7.  His  words  are  as  follows  :  "  Ipsa^ 
haereses  a  Philosophia  subornantur.  Inde  seones  et  forma?, 
nescio  quae,  et  trinitas  hominis  apud  Valentinum.  Platonicus 
fuerat.  Inde  Marcionis  Deus  melior,  de  tranquiUitate  ;  a 
Stoicis  venerat :  et  uti  anima  interire  dicatur,  ab  Epicureis 
observatur.  Et  ut  carnis  restitutio  negetur,  de  una  omnium 
Philosophorum  schola  sumitur.  Et  ubi  materia  cum  Deo 
sequatur,  Zenonis  disciplina  est :  et  ubi  aliquid  de  igneo  Deo 
alligatur,  Heraclitus  intervenit.  Esedem  materiae  apud  haere- 
ticos  et  Philosophos  volutantur,  iidem  retractatus  implicantur^ 
Unde  malum  et  quare  ?  et  unde  homo  et  quomodo  ?  Et  quod 
proximo  Valentinus  proposuit,  unde  Deus  ?  Scilicet  de  En- 
thymesi  et  ectromate.  Sequitur  Aristotelem,  qui  ilhs  Dialec- 
ticam  instituit,  &c."  "  Heresies  themselves  are  suborned  by 
philosophy.  Thence  came  aeons,  and  I  know  not  what  other 
forms,  and  the  human  trinity  of  Valentine.  He  had  been  of 
the  Platonic  school.  Thence  the  superior  Deity  of  Marcion,- 
as  respects  the  tranquillity  ascribed  to  him ;  this  idea  cam^ 
from  the  Stoics.  The  doctrine  that  the  soul  dies,  is  maintain- 
ed by  the  Epicureans.  The  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  is  taken  from  all  the  philosophers  without  exception. 
Where  matter  is  made  equal  with  God,  it  is  the  school  of 
Zeno  :  and  where  any  confused  remarks  are  made  respecting 
a  fiery  God,  there  it  is  Heraclitus.  The  same  subjects  are 
treated  by  the  heretics  and  by  philosophers  ;  both  discuss  the 
same  intricate  questions.  Whence  came  evil,  and  wherefore  ? 
Whence  came  man,  and  how  ?  And  the  inquiry  next  pro- 
posed by  Valentine,  Whence  came  God  ?  Forsooth,  an  in- 
vention of  caprice  and  distorted  fancy.  He  follows  Aristotle, 
who  taught  all  those  persons  dialectics :  ^c."    I  have  added 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  307 

this  passage,  indeed,  with  some  diffidence  ;  as  Bruckeb,  Tom. 
VI.  p.  402,  wonders  "  that  it  is  mentioned  at  the  present  en- 
lightened period  of  the  history  of  philosophy ;  it  being  ob- 
vious that  Tertullian  wrote  in  this  manner,  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  heaping  odium  upon  the  heretics."  I  must  con- 
fess, however,  that  I  cannot  see  how  Tertullian  would  have 
stained  the  character  of  the  Gnostics,  by  saying  that  they 
learned  their  system  from  the  Greeks.  Perhaps  because  the 
worthy  writers  of  the  church,  like  many  in  our  own  day,  despisp 
ed  the  instruction  which  is  to  be  derived  from  polite,  or,  to  use 
plainer  terms,  profane  learning ;  and  endeavored  to  dissuade 
persons  from  the  study  of  it,  as  being  dangerous  and  perni- 
cious, and  tending  to  Atheism  and  paganism.  This,  how- 
ever, is  by  no  means  the  fact.  Yet  no  other  reason  appears 
for  supposing,  that  Tertullian,  in  the  expression  of  this  opinion 
of  his,  desired  to  detract  from  the  character  of  the  Gnostics. 
Not  to  say  that  it  has  been  admitted  by  very  distinguished 
men,  and  also  by  Brucker  himself,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see, 
that  we  have  had  as  yet  very  little  light  in  the  work  of  illuS" 
trating  the  Oriental  philosophy. 

I  now  proceed  to  consider  those  testimonies  which  are  ad- 
duced by  learned  men,  in  order  to  prove,  both  that  there  was 
a  philosophy  of  this  sort,  which  they  have  been  pleased  to 
term  Oriental,  and  that  the  Gnostic  was  taken  from  it ;  and 
to  offer  some  doubts  in  regard  to  them,  especially  to  those 
cited  by  Brucker,  1.  c.  which  are  prominent,  and  have  been 
most  recently  advanced.  These  testimonies,  I  must  confess, 
appear  to  me  rather  vague  and  ambiguous.  They  shew 
clearly,  indeed,  that  the  Persians,  Egyptians,  and  others, 
were  famous  for  their  extraordinary  learning  or  wisdom,  and 
that  this  induced  the  Greeks  to  become  acquainted  with  it ; 
and  this  nobody  is  disposed  to  deny :  for  Clemens  Alex, 
shews  through  the  whole  of  the  Fifth  Book  of  tlie  Stromata, 
that  the  latter  took  many  ideas  from  them,  and  transferred 
them  to  their  own  philosophy.  But  it  cannot  in  any  way  be 
discovered  by  what  is  there  said,  whether  these  nations  had 
any  peculiar  system  of  philosophy,  or  mystical  theology,  dis- 
tinct from  that  general  wisdom  ;  of  what  sort  it  was  ;  what 


308  NO  TRACES  or  THE  cTnOSTICS 

was' its  character  and  genius  ;  or  wliat  doctrines  it  delivered ; 
which,  however,  is  very  necessary,  if  these  testimonies  are 
to  prove  any  thing ;  for  otherwise  this  philosophy  may  be 
made  to  suit  any  opinions  whatsoever.  But,  as  I  have 
said,  we  do  not  find  this  in  the  passages  cited.  The  princi- 
pal references  are  these.  In  Pliny,  H.  N.  L.  xxx.  proem;, 
Democritus  is  said  to  have  gone  "  to  learn  the  magian  philo- 
sophy ;"  (ad  philosophiam  magicam  discendam,)  and  in  Por- 
phyry, Vit.  Plotini,  c.  13,  Plotinus  is  also  stated  to  have  set 
put  "  to  endeavor  to  learn  the  philosophy  cultivated  among 
the  Persians  ;*'  {(piXocfocpias  cra/)a  toTs  Tlsptiafs  iifirridsmii^ivrig  ifsTfav 
Xa^sTv,)  and  finally,  in  EuNAnus,  Aedes.  p.  61,  two  strangers 

profess,  ^rvai  Trjg-xoLKdoCixrjg  (fo(pias  xaXou|ASV*js  oux  (tfAu'^TOUg,  that  they 

are  initiated  in  the  Chaldaic  wisdom,  as  it  is  called,  and  in- 
structed in  its  mysteries.  But  what  is  this  (piXotfo(pIa  ?  None 
other  than  the  Oriental,  they  tell  us.  But  as  in  these  places 
the  term  Oriental  philosophy  does  not  occur ;  and  no  one  ap- 
pellation in  particular  is  used,  but  sometimes  it  is  called  the 
magian  philosophy,  sometimes  the  Persian,  sometimes  the 
Chaldaic ;  and  as  there  are  no  certain  and  clear  marks,  from 
which  the  nature  and  character  of  the  magian,  Persian,  and 
Chaldaic  wisdom,  may  be  known,  and  which  would  lead  us 
thence  to  infer,  that  it  was  the  Oriental  philosophy  ;  I  think 
that  my  assertion  is  just,  that  these  testimonies  are  doubtful, 
and  of  no  weight.  It  is  evident,  moreover,  in  how  various  a 
sense  the  Greek  writers  used  the  term  9iXoo'o(p«'a  ;  compre- 
hending in  it,  chiefly  that  wisdom,  which  relates  to  the  go- 
vernment of  human  life  ;  also  eloquence ;  and  great  fortitude 
in  the  endurance  of  afflictions :  but,  as  far  as  I  know,  there 
is  no  example  to  prove,  that  they  employed  it  with  reference 
to  any  theological  system,  or  to  opinions  in  regard  to  God, 
and  divine  things.  But,  to  speak  my  own  opinion  in  respect 
to  this  (piXotfo(pia  <rapa  ro7s  nF^tfaiV,  and  Coqji'a  p^aX^aVxi^,  I  consider 
it  as  nothing  else  than  that  ancient  science  of  the  Eastern  na- 
tions, called  Magic  ;  which  was  supposed  to  consist  in  a  se- 
cret knowledge  of  spiritual  beings,  and  a  famihar  intercourse 
with  them,  and  arose  first  in  Chaldea,  Persia,  and  other  neigh- 
boring countries^  but  not  vfiry  long  afterwards  was  spread 


IN  THE  NJIW  TESTAMENT.  309 

and  boasted  of  among  the  Egyptians ;  who,  owing  to  their 
fanatical  and  superstitious  character,  (Brucker,  Tom.  ii.  p. 
219.)  went  even  farther  still,  and  attributed  to  this  familiarity 
with  spirits  a  power  of  doing  things,  which  were  beyond  hu- 
man ability.  Men  of  this  kind,  who  cultivated  that  science, 
and  a  very  ancient  example  of  whom  is  to  be  found  in  those 
Egyptian  impostors,  who,  imitating  by  their  fraudulent;  con- • 
trivances  the  miracles  of  Moses,  endeavored  to  deceive  the 
eyes  and  the  minds  of  the  unwary,  were  called  ^aufxatfioi  or 
Sau/jiaTO'jroioi' ;  not  only  because  they  were  distinguished  for 
their  wonderful  power  and  learning,  as  Cicero,  in  his  Ora- 
tor, calls  Herodotus  "wonderful"  (mirabilem),*  and  as 
Athenaeus,  Deipnos.  iii.  5,t  terms  him  "  most  wonderful," 
(^au|uia(rjwrarov,)  but  because  they  performed  miracles,  or  ra- 
ther false  appearances  of  miracles,  feigned  either  for  the  sake 
of  gain,  or  for  superstitious  purposes,  or  in  adaptation  to  the 
opinions  of  the  people,  who  were  given  up  to  weak  supersti- 
tion. Among  these  was  particularly  famous  that  Apollonius 
Tyanaeus,  of  whom  the  garrulous  and  trifling  Philostra- 
Tus,  in  his  '  Vit.  Apoll.  Tyan.'J  has  not  blushed  to  say,  that 
he  raised  the  dead  to  Hfe.  After  Apollonius,  the  next  place 
in  the  school  of  wonderful  (^auf*atf»oi)  philosophers  must  be 
assigned,  as  Brucker  himself  shews,  Tom.  ii.  p.  227,  to  Plo- 
tinus,  "  since  not  only,  (I  use  his  express  words)  was  he  al- 
together occupied  in  metaphysical  speculations,  but  also 
boasted  of  theurgic  powers."  Compare  also  p.  143  s.  and 
265  of  the  same  Volume.  Which  circumstance  is  itself  a 
proof,  that  by  (piXotfo^/a  -jrapot  roTs  liipdats  is  meant  Magic,  for 
the  sake  of  acquiring  which  it  appears  that  many  philoso- 
phers travelled  to  the  nations  which  were  famous  for  the  pro- 
fession of  it,  and  on  their  return  boasted  that  they  were  com- 
pletely instructed  in  it  ;  to  prove  which  Brucker,  Tom.  iii. 
p.  379,  cites  the  testimony  of  Tatian,  who,  after  he  had  said 


*  [  Orator,  ad  Brutum ;  Cicer.  Opera,  Vol.  n.  p.  5S2,  Edit.  Gronoy. 
Lugd.  Bat.  1692.— Tr.  ]  ' 

i  [  Vol.  I.  p.  309.  Ed.  Schweigh.— Tr.  ] 
t  C IV.  16,  p.  206,  Ed.  Morell.  Par.  1608.— Tr.  ] 


3lO  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

"  that  he  had  gone  over  a  great  part  of  the  earth,  and  had 
acted  the  philosopher  ((ro(pi(rrsu(ra^),"  adds,  "that  he  had  acquired 
innumerable  secret  arts  and  inventions/'  The  case  of  De- 
mocritus,  however,  is  the  plainest  of  all.  He  vsras  universal- 
ly charged  by  the  ancients  with  magic  ;  and  the  same  Pliny, 
who  states  that  he  went  to  learn  the  magian  philosophy,  class* 
•  es  him  among  magical  authors,  H.  N.  xxiv.  17.  xxx.  1. 
Though  some  learned  men,  particularly  Brucker.  Tom.  i. 
p.  1184,  do  not  agree  with  him  in  this  representation,  and 
Gellius,  xvii.  21,  reproves  him  for  ascribing  to  Democritus 
a  number  of  intolerable  absurdities  ;  yet  others,  for  the  most 
part,  assent  to  Pliny's  account,  and  are  not  so  ready  to  acquit 
Democritus  of  the  charge  of  magic.  At  any  rate,  it  may  be 
perceived  from  what  has  been  said,  that  this  passage  of  Pliny 
cannot,  with  any  propriety,  be  cited,  for  the  purpose  of  prov- 
ing the  Oriental  philosophy  ;  since  Pliny  understood  by  *  ma- 
gian philosophy,'  though  incorrectly,  as  learned  men  think, 
magic  and  magical  arts. 

And  that  the  same  thing  is  meant  by  *  Chaldaic  philosophy' 
in  Eunapius,  the  whole  tenor  of  the  narrative  may  shew  to 
any  one,  even  at  the  slightest  investigation.  I  will  give  the 
reader  a  brief  statement  of  the  writer's  subject,  that  he  may 
the  more  easily  judge  of  the  great  weight  of  this  testimony, 
adduced  in  proof  of  the  Oriental  philosophy.  To  two  old 
men,  Eunapius  tells  us,  who  had  come  to  the  farm  of  Sosi- 
patra's  parents,  dressed  like  travellers,  and  having  the  ap- 
pearance of  rustics,  was  entrusted,  at  her  request,  the  care 
of  a  vineyard  ;  which,  from  that  time,  bore  fruit  in  far  great- 
er abundance  than  ever,  so  that  every  one  who  saw  it  imme- 
diately suspected  a  miracle.  Wherefore  the  old  men,  having 
been  very  handsomely  attired,  and  sent  for  to  a  feast,  when 
they  saw  Sosipatra,  and  were  captivated  with  her  beauty, 
entreated  that  she  might  be  committed  to  their  instruction 
for  five  years  ;  beseeching  her  father  not  to  be  anxious  ei- 
ther about  his  farm,  or  his  daughter  ;  but  to  expect  that  the 
former  would  yield  very  abundant  fruits,  and  that  the  latter 
would  rise  above  the  condition  of  mortals.  The  father  com- 
plied.   When  the  five  years  had  elapsed,  the  daughter  re- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMEiNT.  **}11 

turned  ;  and  her  father  not  knowing  lier,  from  the  size  and 
beauty  of  her  body,  worshipped  her,  thinking  that  he  saw  a 
being  altogether  of  another  nature.  When  she  had  at  length 
been  recognized,  she  told  every  thing,  from  the  greatest  to 
the  least,  that  had  happened  to  her  in  the  mean  time  ;  and 
threw  her  father  into  such  admiration  and  astonishment  by 
this  account,  that  he  thought  his  daughter  a  goddess,  and  fall- 
ing down  at  the  feet  of  the  old  men,  begged  that  they  would 
tell  him  who  they  were.  They  hesitating,  said  with  difficulty, 
after  a  while,  that  they  belonged  to  the  cect,  called  Chaldaic, 
and  were  initiated  in  its  mysteries  ;  and  this  in  an  enigmatical 
manner,  and  with  downcast  faces.  When  the  father  had 
heard  this,  he  begged  them,  in  an  imploring  manner,  that  they 
would  become  the  proprietors  of  the  farm,  and  would  more 
fully  instruct  his  daughter,  who  was  consecrated  to  the 
Gods  ;  to  which  they  signified  their  assent  by  signs,  not  ut- 
tering another  word.  In  what  follows,  these  old  men  are 
called  genii  ;  and  she  is  stated  to  have  been  Srsiarf/xsvii  xai  iv. 
Soufl'»(iio'a,  (agitated  by  a  divine  power,  and  filled  with  inspira- 
tion,) and  Sffjors'/ja,  and  to  have  been  every  where  present,  and 
to  have  predicted  future  events,  which  were  brought  to  pass. 
I  do  not  know  what  others  may  think,  after  reading  this ; 
but,  for  myself,  I  do  not  see  even  the  shadow  of  a  trace  of 
a  certain  peculiar  science,  viz.  the  Oriental ;  but  am  persuad- 
ed that  all  this  relates  to  magic.  And,  in  truth,  I  cannot 
cease  to  wonder,  that  so  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon 
this  passage,  which  is  evidently  to  be  placed  on  the  list  of 
mere  idle  fables  ;  and  ought  never  to  have  been  cited  by 
way  of  proof  on  such  an  occasion  as  this.  This  is  also  the 
opinion  of  Walch,  in  his  'Dissertation  on  the  Source  of  the 
Gnostic  System  in  the  Oriental  philosophy,*  which  is  added 
at  the  end  of  Part  ii.  of  the  Commentatt.  of  Michaelis,  p. 
284  ;  where  he  alsp  adds,  that  not  only  is  the  credit  of  Eu- 
napius  injured,  by  his  relation  of  such  absurdities,  but  his  tes- 
timony is  not  of  much  weight,  on  account  of  the  character  of 
the  age  in  which  he  lived. 

From  what  has  been  said,  the  point  I  designed  to  establish 
is  clear  ;  viz.  that  the  passages  cited  by  Brucker  from  Pliny 


312  NO  TRACES  or  THE  GNOSTICS 

and  other  writers,  do  not  relate  to  the  Oriental  philosopKy, 
but  to  Magic ;  and  therefore  that  the  whole  subject  of  the 
Oriental  philosophy  is  uncertain.    But  let  us  grant  that  those 
passages  have  a  different  meaning  from  that  which  I  have  as- 
signed to  them  :  at  any  rate  they  are  not  to  be  explained  of 
the  Oriental  philosophy,  but  rather  of  the  barbarian ;  which, 
though  held  in  great  contempt  by  some  of  the  ancient  philo- 
sophers, as  was  the  case  with  Epicurus,  according  to  Cle- 
mens Alexand RiN us,  *  Strom/ L.  i.  p.  302.  ed.  Sylb.,  was 
held  in  the  greatest  estimation  by  others  ;  so  that  it  is  easy  to 
see  the  reason  of  the  journies  made  to  those  nations  by  the 
Greeks.     Hence  Clemens,  in  the  place  just  mentioned,  ob- 
serves that  it  would  be  superfluous  to  prove,  that  some  very 
distinguished  philosophers  and  wise  men  of  the  Greeks  were 
both  barbarian  in  their  extraction,  as  Pythagoras,  Antisthenes, 
Orpheus,  and  Homer ;  and  also  instructed  by  the  barbarians. 
He  relates,  moreover,  that  Plato,  (as  is  shewn  by  his  very  ele- 
gant writings,  from  which  Sylburg  has  cited  passages,  at  this 
place  of  Clemens,)  not  only  was  a  great  admirer  of  the  bar- 
barians, but  also  frankly  confessed,  that  he  and  Pythagoras 
acquired  among  those  nations  the  most  excellent  part  of  phi- 
losophy.    Hence  he  observes,  L.  vi.  p.  629,  that  Epicurus, 
though  he  said  that  none  but  the  Greeks  understood  philoso- 
phy, (as  had  been  shewn  in  the  above  mentioned  passage,  L. 
I.)  stole  his  principal  doctrines  from  that  same  Democritus, 
who  was  very  learned  in  the  barbarian  philosophy  ;  and  also 
that  Pythagoras  conversed  intimately  with  the  prophets  of  the 
Egyptians,  L.  i.  1.  c,  on  which  account  he  submitted  to  cir- 
cumcision, in  order  that,  by  entering  into  their  secret  recesses, 
he  might  acquire  the  mystical  philosophy  of  the  Egyptians  ; 
and  that  he  was  intimate  with  the  most  distinguished  of  the 
Chaldeans  and  Magians.  And  no  one,  I  imagine,  would  deem 
Pythagoras  a  Gnostic  !     To  this  testimony  is  added  that  of 
Origen,  cont.  Cels.  L.  i,  p.  5.  ed.  Hoeschel,  who  derives  the 
origin  of  almost  all  schools  and  philosophy  from  the  barba- 
rians.    There  is  no  need,  however,  of  these  proofs,  the  thing 
being  quite  evident.     Nor  do  I  perceive  any  thing  in  that 
place  of  Clemens.  L.  r.  p.  303,  so  far  as  I  can  understand  it : 


IN  the;  new  testament,  313 

irom  which,  because  he  speaks  of  the  philosophy  of  tho 
Brachmans,  the  Odrysoe,  and  the  Getae,  and  also  of  the  Chal- 
deans and  Arabians,  Brucker  thinks  it  may  be  discovered,  that 
both  the  name  and  reputation  of  the  Oriental  philosophy  had 
spread  among  the  Greeks.  This  only  I  can  see  ;  that  what 
is  said  relates  to  the  barbarian  philosophy,  to  which  the  Greeks 
accommodated  their  own  ;  not  to  the  Oriental,  i.  e.  some  pe- 
cuhar  system,  different  from  the  Greek  and  the  barbarian. 

The  testimonies,  therefore,  cited  by  Brucker,  in  proof  of 
an  Oriental  philosophy,  have  not  sufficient  certainty,  and  are 
of  no  weight.  It  is,  indeed,  evident  from  these,  and  cannot 
be  denied,  that  some  of  the  learned  men  of  antiquity  had 
heard  of  the  remarkable  knowledge  of  the  Persians  and  Chal- 
deans ;  and  that  some  among  them,  ardently  desirous  of  ac- 
quiring it,  took  journies  to  them,  and  were  considerably  be- 
nefited by  their  instructions.  But  the  great  point  under  dis- 
cussion, and  against  which  I  contend,  can  in  no  way  be  made 
to  appear  by  these  citations  ;  viz.  first,  that  these  nations,  be- 
sides that  philosophy  which  is  commonly  attributed  to  them, 
had  a  ccrttiin  peculiar  system,  of  a  mystical  and  theological 
nature,  different  from  the  barbarian  wisdom,  so  called,  and 
termed  Oriental ;  secondly,  that  this  is  the  source  of  the  Gnos^ 
tic  philosophy  ;  and  iastly,  what  is  absolutely  necessary  to  be 
shewn,  if  any  passages  of  the  N.  Testament  are  to  be  illus^ 
trated  from  the  Gnostic  philosophy,  that  this  Gnostic  philoso- 
phy took  its  rise  from  that  Oriental  philosophy  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Christ,  and  perhaps  long  before  ;  and,  what  I  wish 
chiefly  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  it  was  approved  of  by  the 
Jews  in  Palestine,  and  by  the  Greeks  in  Asia  Minor,  and  also 
in  Greece  itself,  at  Corinth,  and  in  other  places  ;  and  was  ea- 
gerly received  by  so  great  a  number  of  people,  and  so  made 
use  of  to  corrupt,  and  defile  with  various  errors  the  pure 
Christian  doctrine,  that  the  Apostles  were  put  to  the  necessity 
of  seriously  admonishing  Christians,  not  to  suffer  themselves 
to  be  deceived  by  it,  and  of  rejecting  and  vehemently  refut- 
ing, in  their  writings,  its  false  doctrines,  which  had  already 
crept  into  the  Apostolic  doctrine,  and  $ystem  of  morals.  I 
think,  therefore,  th^re  will  be  none  disposed  to  blame  me,  be- 

40 


314  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

cause  I  have  ventured  to  differ  from  the  opinion  of  so  many 
distinguished  men  ;  and  to  doubt  both  as  to  the  existence  of 
the  whole  Oriental  philosophy,  and  as  to  the  position  that 
from  it  the  Gnostic  system  was  derived. 

I  shall  now  briefly  sum  up  what  has  been  said.  In  the 
first  place,  I  cited  the  testimony  of  authors  worthy  of  credit^ 
who  assign  a  somewhat  later  date  to  the  Gnostic  philosophy, 
than  is  commonly  supposed,  and  clearly  shew  that  it  became 
generally  known  in  the  Second  Century.  In  the  next  place 
I  shewed,  that  Greek  writers,  and  the  Jewish  authors  Jose- 
phus  and  Philo,  have  not  said  a  word  about  the  Gnostics  even 
in  those  places,  where  they  could  not  properly  have  passed 
them  by,  or,  at  any  rate,  where  they  had  a  convenient  oppor- 
tunity for  mentioning  them  ;  and  that  it  can  by  no  means  be 
believed,  that  they  would  have  omitted  a  subject  of  so  much 
importance,  as  it  is  commonly  supposed  this  system  had  ob- 
tained, if  it  had  indeed  existed  in  their  time.  I  then  consi- 
dered some  passages  of  Philo  in  particular,  in  which  learned 
men  have  thought  they  discovered  traces  of  the  Gnostic  phi- 
losophy, and  defended  them  against  this  supposition  ;  shewing 
that  they  can  be  easily  otherwise  explained,  and  ought  there- 
fore to  be  so.  In  the  third  place,  1  treated  of  the  source  of 
the  Gnostic  philosophy  ;  that  philosophy,  viz.  which  Mosheim 
first  termed  Oriental  ;  and  shewed,  not  only  that  the  ancient 
ecclesiastical  writers  were  entirely  unacquainted  with  this 
Oriental  philosophy,  and  suppose  the  Gnostics  to  have  drawn 
their  doctrines  from  another  source,  but  that  in  the  passages 
of  PHny,  and  of  other  writers,  from  which  learned  men  have 
attempted  to  prove,  both  that  there  was  a  certain  Oriental  phi- 
losophy, and  that  the  Gnostic  was  derived  from  it,  there  is 
nothing  of  the  kind  ;  but  that  they  ought  to  be  understood  in 
some  other  sense,  certainly  not  as  referring  to  the  Oriental 
philosophy.  And  thence  I  think  it  may  with  good  reason  be 
inferred,  that  that  opinion  is  doubtful,  not  sufficiently  esta- 
blished, or,  to  speak  freely,  is  false,  which  maintains  that  the 
philosophy  of  the  Gnostics  was  known,  spread,  and  receiv- 
ed, through  nearly  all  the  world,  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  the 
Apostlcr^.  or  rather  during  that  of  the  Seventy  Interpreters ; 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  315 

biit  that  there  is  much  more  probabihty,  and  therefore  cer- 
tainty, in  that  which  supposes  the  Gnostics  to  have  been  sub- 
sequent to  the  ApostoHc  age.  And  here  I  cannot  refrain  from 
adding  the  words  of  Brucker  ;  in  which  he  appears  to  utter 
an  opinion  precisely  in  accordance  with  my  own  :  though  the 
praise  is  due  to  him  in  common  with  Mosheim,  of  having 
brought  forward,  and  defended,  the  opposite  sentiment.  In 
Tom.  VI.  Hist.  Crit.  Phil.  p.  402,  he  thus  expresses  himself : 
"  Although  these  testimonies  which  I  have  cited,  to  prove  the 
existence  of  some  theological  and  mystical  system,  flourishing 
every  where  among  the  Eastern  nations  at  the  first  period  of 
the  Christian  religion,  are  sufficient,  if  not  fully  to  satisfy  an 
inquisitive  mind,  at  any  rate  to  convince  it  that  the  position  is 
probable  ;  yet  it  must  be  confessed,  that,  amidst  so  many 
traces  of  its  existence,  historical  circumstances  are  very  ob- 
scure ;  and  that  as  clear  a  light  is  not  shed  upon  the  history 
of  this  sect,  or  of  the  Oriental  philosophy,  as  that  which 
guides  us  in  the  history  of  the  Grecian  school  of  philosophy, 
or  even  of  the  heresies,  which  sprang  up  within  the  Christian 
church."  Mark  how  doubtfully  he  speaks,  and  with  what  lit- 
tle confidence  in  his  own  opinion  !  And  in  p.  403,  he  says  ; 
•'  I  confess  also,  that,  although  I  have  been  engaged  for  al- 
most fifty  years  in  investigating  the  history  of  ancient  philoso- 
phy, I  have  not  yet  arrived  at  as  certain  and  clear  a  know- 
ledge, as  we  have,  for  example,  in  regard  to  the  Socratic,  or 
even  the  Pythagorean  sects  ;  and  that  great  darkness  hangs 
over  this  portion  of  the  subject,  &c."  The  same  admission 
is  made  also  by  Mosheim,  De  Reb.  Christ,  ante  Constant.  M. 
§.  xxxi.  p.  26  ;  by  Michaelis,  in  the  Dissertation  above  re- 
ferred to,  respecting  the  traces  of  the  Gnostic  philosophy  in 
the  time  of  the  Seventy  Interpreters,  and  of  Philo  ;  and  by 
Walch,  in  the  work  just  cited. 

I  would  here  make  the  general  remark,  h6wever,  that  I 
cannot  cease  to  wonder  at  this  inconsistency  of  learned  men, 
in  their  defence  of  the  point  under  discussion  ;  and  particu- 
larly of  Mosheim  and  Brucker,  who  are  every  ^here  so  con- 
fused, that  they  do  not  know  where  to  turn  amidst  the  difficul- 
ties into  which  they  have  brought  themselves,  and  frequently 


B16  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GJ^OSTJCS 

run  hither  and  thither  into  opposite  assertions  :  and  some- 
times it  is  impossible  to  know  with  any  certainty  what  is 
their  real  opinion.  Thus,  for  example,  Mosheim,  when  he  is 
endeavoring  to  illustrate,  and  prove  the  existence  of  the 
Oriental  philosophy,  attempts  to  benefit  his  cause  by  saying, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Chaldeans  and  Persians  respecting 
the  origin  of  evil  is  so  very  ancient,  that  none  can  have  any 
doubt  in  regard  to  it.  This  is  true  enbugh,  and  about  that 
doctrine  there  is  no  question  :  but  whether,  besides  it,  there 
was  another  peculiar  system  among  the  Chaldeans  and  Per- 
sians, which  was  professed  also  by  the  Jews  and  Greeks  in 
Palestine  and  Asia  Minor,  iii  the  time  of  Christ  and  the 
Apostles,  and  which  was  termed  the  Oriental  philosophy  i 
and  whether  from  this  had  arisen,  even  at  that  time,  the 
Gnostic  system  ;  this  is  the  point,  as  to  which  I  ask  for  histo- 
rical proof — Moreover,  when  he  finds  it  impossible  to  get 
clear  of  the  difficulty  presented  by  those  passages  of  ancient 
ecclesiastical  writers,  in  which  it  is  expressly  asserted,  that 
the  Gnostics  arose  subsequently  to  the  times  of  the  Apostles  ; 
.he  admits,  indeed,  that  the  Gnostics  were  not,  at  this  period, 
called  by  that  name,  but  says,  however,  that  their  philosophy, 
which  was  termed  /vwo**^,  was  then  in  existence.  This  is  no- 
thing more  than  strengthening  one  conjecture  by  another* 
And  besides,  he  himself  thinks  that  he  has  proved,  in  many 
places,  "  that  in  the  time  of  Christ,  and  before  that  period, 
there  wef^  philosophers,  who  were  called  Gnostics  by  others, 
or  aspired  to  that  title  themselves."  See  Instit.  H.  E.  maj.  p. 
260  s.,  and  other  places  already  cited.  How  do  these  things 
agree  one  with  the  other  ?  But  conjectures,  and  predeter- 
mined opinions,  never  afe  consistent  with  themselves. — Fui»- 
ther,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  two  Epistles  to  Timothy, 
p.  597,  he  divides  the  Gnostics  into  two  separate  classes  ; 
saying  that  some  of  these  heretics  were  united  with  the 
Christians,  while  others  had  no  communion  with  them. 
There  is  no  warrant,  however,  for  such  a  distinction,  but  Mos- 
heim's  own  imagination  ;  nor  can  it  be  established  by  any 
historical  proof. — At  length  he  creeps  out,  either  by  saying, 
that  every  thing  is  false  and  uncertain,  which  the  ancient  eft?- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  dVt 

xilesiastical  writers  have  told  us  respecting  the  period  and 
sources  of  the  Gnostic  philosophy,  as  we  have  seen  above  ; 
(but  I  have  just  as  much  right  to  say,  that  what  M osheim  as- 
serts is  false  ;)  or  by  perverting  and  confusing  the  passages 
which  occur  in  these  writers,  until  they  are  made  to  coincide 
with  his  own  opinion.  Thus  in  his  Commentary  just  referred 
to,  p.  105,  he  wishes  to  prove  from  a  place  of  Clem.  Alex. 
Strom.  II.  11,  that  the  Gnostics  themselves  also  allowed,  that 
their  opinions  were  condemned  by  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistles  to 
Timothy  ;  and  that,  on  this  account,  they  rejected  these  epis- 
tles. There  is  no  such  thing,  however,  as  this,  in  the  whole 
passage.  Clement  says,  indeed,  that  these  epistles  were  re- 
jected by  the  Gnostics  ;  not,  however,  because  they  thought 
that  they  had  been  attacked  in  them,  but  rather  for  this  reason, 
which  he  adds  expressly  ;  viz.  because  some  passages  might 
be  adduced  from  these  epistles  in  refutation  of  their  opinions, 
which  they  could  not  answer :  and  the  same  course  ever  has 
been,  and  is  now  pursued  by  those,  who  are  the  inventors  of 
erroneous  doctrines. — From  all  this  therefore,  it  may  be  seen, 
how  learned  men  are  compelled  to  turn  from  one  resource 
to  the  other,  in  order  to  establish  their  opinion  as  to  the  anti» 
<juity  and  the  source  of  the  Gnostic  philosophy  ;  and  also 
what  weight  is  to  be  attributed  to  it,  in  the  midst  of  such  in- 
consistency and  uncertainty. 


Part  II.     philological. 

Mlaving  in  the  former  part  proved,  by  arguments  which 
appear  to  me  conclusive,  that  the  pernicious  philosophy  of 
the  Gnostics  did  not  arise  among  the  Jews  in  Palestine,  and 
the  Greeks  in  Asia  Minor  and  in  Greece  itself,  during  the 
times  of  the  Apostles,  but  somewhere  in  the  Second  Century, 
at  any  rate  that  it  was  not  before  this  period  injurious  to 
Christianity  ;  I  shall  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
those  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which  learned  men 
are  of  opinion  that  the  sacred  writers  are  opposing  the  Gnos* 
tics,  and  that  verv  clear  traces  of  these  heretics  exist.     1 


318  .  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

shall,  therefore,  bring  forward  these  places,  and'  endeavor 
to  shew,  that  they  can  be  explained  in  some  other  more  suita- 
ble, and  perhaps  more  probable  way  :  not,  indeed,  with  the 
intention  of  proposing  a  new  meaning  and  scope  for  all  the 
passages  under  discussion  ;  but  in  order  to  render  more  pro- 
bable, by  an  exhibition  of  the  very  words  and  subject- 
matter,  and  using,  as  it  were,  the  authority  of  the  inspired 
writers  themselves,  that  explanation  which,  I  think  most 
agreeable  to  the  best  interpreters  ;  and  to  estabhsh  and  illus- 
trate it  by  arguments  either  new,  or  at  any  rate  supplied  with 
new  force ;  and  thus  to  endeavor  to  put  the  interpretation 
in  a  clearer  light.  I  shall  not,  however,  cite  and  examine 
every  single  place,  in  which  some  learned  writers,  blinded  by 
attachment  to  their  own  preconceived  opinion,  and  particu- 
larly Hammond,  have  thought  they  discovered  something  of 
the  kind.  In  this  case  I  should  have  no  end  to  my  labor  ; 
for  they  bring  forward  such  a  multitude  of  passages,  that 
there  is  scarcely  a  page,  in  which  they  do  not  seek,  and  of 
course  find,  traces  of  the  Gnostics  :  for  an  eager  anxiety  to 
maintain  a  new  opinion  never  is  in  quest  of  any  thing,  which  it 
does  not  with  ease  discover.  A  course  which  some  distin- 
guished men,  who,  in  other  respects,  have  gone  to  the  great- 
est lengths  in  their  anxiety  to  hunt  after  traces  of  the  Gnos- 
tics, and  particularly  Mosheim,  Institut.  H.  E.  maj.  p.  316, 
have  exceedingly  blamed  in  Hammond  ;  not  hesitating  to 
confess,  that  he  has  transgressed  all  proper  bounds.  Nor 
shall  I  say  any  thing  about  places  in  the  Old  Testament  ; 
either  in  the  Hebrew  text  itself,  where  Vitringa  thinks  he 
sees  something  in  reference  to  the  present  subject,  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  Isaiah,  Vol.  n.  p.  583  ;  or  in  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion, where  Michaelis,  in  his  learned  dissertation  above  re- 
ferred to,  has  maintained  that  there  are  traces  of  the  Gnos- 
tics. From  this  labor  I  may  be  excused  ;  since,  so  far  as  the 
dissertation  just  mentioned  is  concerned,  Ernesti  has  al- 
ready performed  it  in  the  N.  th.  Bibl.  T.  vni.  p.  721  s.,  where 
he  has  brought  forward  some  arguments  in  support  of  my 
opinion,  few  in  number,  indeed,  but,  as  is  usual  with  him,  ex- 
ceedingly weighty.     I  shall  only  observe  this  much,  that  it 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  319 

may  perhaps  seem  wonderful,  that  such  a  degree  of  proba- 
bility should  be  attached  to  two  or  three  passages,  and  those, 
too,  ambiguous  in  their  character,  in  a  version  of  such  ^ize. 
I  shall  only,  therefore,  cite  the  principal  places  of  the  rfew 
Testament,  which  have  been  adduced,  in  order  to  prove 
traces  of  the  Gnostics  in  the  New  Testament,  by  those  who 
profess  to  take  a  middle  path  on  this  subject.  As  this  middle 
path,  however,  is  not  defined  by  any  certain  limits,  the  same 
thing  has  happened  to  them,  as  to  all  who  give  out  that  they 
take  a  moderate  course  on  any  subject ;  viz.  that  they  fluc- 
tuate, and  step  aside  from  their  path  ;  and  think  that  they 
have  discovered  the  inspired  writers  to  be,  in  some  places, 
opposing  certain  opinions,  of  which,  in  those  passages,  not  a 
trace  exists.  Of  this  kind  are  chiefly  those  places,  in  which 
the  name  of  a  certain  philosophy,  and  also  yvwo'jj  itself  oc- 
cur ;  viz.  Coloss.  n.  8  s.  and  i.  Tim.  vi.  20.  It  is  thought,  in- 
deed, that  these  entire  epistles,  as  also  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  have  reference  to  this  subject  ;  but  that  these 
places  are  particularly  clear  on  the  point :  I  shall  consider 
these,  therefore,  first  of  all  ;  and  afterwards  attend  to  the 
other  passages,  from  the  writings  of  St.  John  and  St.  Peter. 

I  begin  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  ;  in  which  some 
learned  writers  are  particularly  struck  with  the  Apostle's  ar- 
gument in  opposition  to  a  certain  philosophy,  which  they 
think  is  none  other  than  the  Gnostic  ;  and  this  they  have  en- 
deavored to  prove  in  a  very  ingenious  manner.  There  is 
very  great  difficulty  in  the  word  (pjXotfotp/a  itself;  respecting 
the  signification  of  which,  in  this  place,  there  is  much  differ- 
ence of  sentiment  among  the  learned,  whose  opinions  I  need 
not  here  mention.  Let  it  suffice  to  name  one,  whom  I  have 
recently  read,  viz.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  whom  most  others 
follow ;  who  understands  <p<Xotfo(pja  of  the  Greek  philosophy, 
and  particularly  the  Epicurean  and  Stoic,  and  adds  to  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  these  which  follow  :  t%  dvatpoCdT^g  Trjv 
'jfpovoiav,  Strom.  L.  i.  p.  295  s.  and  L.  vi.  p.  645  ;  where  he 
says,  that  the  Apostle's  meaning  is,  that  he  who  has  aspired 
to  a  more  exalted  knowledge,  i.  e.  has  learnt  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  Christ,  should  no  more  resort  to  the  Greek  philoso- 


320  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

phy ;  and  that  he  calls  this  to.  ioixsTa  <rou  xotrM-ou,  the  elements 
of  the  world,  since  it  teaches,  after  a  certain  manner,  the  first 
beginnings,  and  is,  as  it  were,  the  instruction  which  precedes 
truth.     But  it  is  a  very  ancient  meaning  of  (piXorfoipla  with  the 
Greeks,  to  denote  all  science,  and  particularly  eloquence  ;  in 
which  sense  the  word  is  frequent  with  Isocrates,  as  in  the 
beginning  of  the  Panegyric,*  and  of  Evagoras  ;t  though  the 
word  was  subsequently  applied  to  human  life,  so  that  (piXotfo- 
(p»a  was  the  same  as  wisdom,  of  which  signification  abundant 
examples  and  proofs  are  to  be  found  in  ancient  works,  parti- 
cularly those  of  the  Greeks.     Comp.  Ernesti,  opusculaOra- 
toria,  p.  200.     But  the  Jews,  when  they  began  to  speak  and 
to  write  in  Greek  on  their  various  subjects,  had  no  better  or 
more  suitable  word  than  (p»Xo(ro(p<a,  wherewith  to  express  the 
system  of  revealed  religion,  which  we  term  Theology  ;  and 
accordingly  called  it  by  that  title.     For  at  that  time  the  word 
&soXoy»a  was  not  in  use,  unless  the  heathen  writers  happened 
to  be  discoursing  of  their  opinions  in  regard  to  the  gods,  and 
their  generation,  which  they  usually  called  Srso^oyfa  ;  but  to 
apply  the  term  to  the  knowledge  of  sacred  things,  was  not 
warranted  by  the  usage  of  those  times.    The  Jews,  therefore, 
having  no  word  in  the  Greek  language  to  express  the  doc- 
trine of  divine  things,  employed  the  word  (piXotfoipja  for  this 
purpose,  as  appears  plainly  from  the  writings  of  Philo  and 
Josephus  ;  various  places  from  whom  have  been  cited  by  the 
learned,  particul£u*ly  Krebs,  in  his  *  Observatt.  in  N.  T.  e 
Joseph.,'  at  this  place,  p.  336,  and  Wolfius  in  loc.    Parti- 
cularly clear  is  that  passage  of  Josephus,  Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  3. 
1.,  where  he  calls  the  ceremonial  law  (piXotfocpla  vo/xou ;  and  that 
also  of  Philo, '  Quod  om.  prob,  lib.'  p.  878,  Ed.  Franc.  1691, 
where  he  applies  the  term  (ptXcCo^ia  to  the  whole  sacred  doc- 
trine of  the  Essenes  ;  and,  in  what  goes  before,  uses  this 
same  word  in  the  sense  of  the  lazvs  of  their  country,  which 
the  human  mind  cannot  understand  without  divine  inspiration 


*  [  I30CR.  Op.  Vol.  I.  p.  124,  Ed.  Lond.  1749.— Tr.  1 
t  [Ibid.Vol.  ii.p,73.— Tr.  3 


IN  THf:  N£W  TESTAMENT.  «i*21 

(var^i'oi^  vof/.o(^,  ovg  ofA^^avov  a.Mdpu'slvYiv  i1e^vo1^(f^x.^  •4>i>}(^v  etvsu  xenraxu- 
X^jff  iv^iou).  And  this  was  the  only  philosophy  with  which 
the  Jews  were  acquainted,  viz.  that  science  which  related  to 
the  sacred  writings,  and  to  their  right  interpretation :  this 
was  their  philosophy,  and  was  taught  in  their  schoob.  Those 
who  had  not  learnt  it,  were  called  aypAj^fAaroj,  Acts,  iv.  13  ; 
and  the  science  itself  was  termed  y^af^fAora,  John,  vii.  15. 
Now,  from  this  usage  of  speech  of  the  Jews,  it  may  be  seen 
what  the  Apostle  means  by  (piXotfocpia  in  the  passage  referred 
to  ;  viz.  as  has  been  remarked  by  some  learned  writers,  the 
Jewish  theology,  which,  in  those  times,  had  assumed  almost 
entirely  the  form  of  philosophy  :  and  as  the  Jews  supposed 
the  knowledge  of  the  laws  to  be  the  perfection  of  wisdom 
(tfo^ia),  as  is  shewn  by  Josephus,  Ant.  Jud.  Lib.  xx,  c.  10. 
§.  2,  Ed.  Oxon.  1720,  f^ovois  tfofptav  fAa^u^outfi  roTg  to,  v6jui,»|*a  (fci(pug 
itmikivois,  *  they  allow  those  alone  to  be  considered  as  wise, 
who  have  acquired  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  laws ; ' 
therefore,  in  the  passage  under  discussion,  may  be  understood 
principally  the  knowledge  of  the  Mosaic  law,  not  only  that 
possessed  by  the  Jewish  teachers,  but  also  that  of  some 
Christians  themselves,  who,  while  they  professed  faith  in 
Christ,  inculcated  the  necessity  of  obedience  to  the  ritual 
law,  and  particularly  to  circumcision,  as  being  an  eternal  co- 
venant between  God  and  men.  This,  then,  is  that  deceitful 
and  vain  philosophy,  (for  <piKo(fo<pia,  xcu  xevfj  aflrarii,  as  Grotius, 
and  others  after  him  have  observed,  is  a  hendiadis  for  (piXotfo- 
<pia  xai  xsvYi  xai  d^ar/}Xi9,)  against  whose  deception  the  Apostle 
wishes  Christians  to  be  on  their  guard.  How  common,  at 
that  time,  was  this  sense  of  the  word  (pjXotfoipia,  is  evident  from 
the  fact,  that  it  was  adopted  also  by  the  ancient  ecclesiastical 
instructors,  and  Christian  writers.  For  it  is  very  common 
with  them,  to  call  the  doctrine  delivered  by  Jesus  Christ  aX*3- 
Qris  (^Xo(fo(pia^  the  true  philosophy,  which  certainly  is  not  any 
Gnostic  or  Oriental  philosophy ;  as  in  Clemens  Alex.,  Stro- 
mat.  L.  I.  p.  314,  and^SocRATES,  H.  E.  L.  iv,  c.  27  ;  and  al- 
so iuayyBlix'?!  (piXotfotpla,  the  evangelical  philosophy,  as  in  Thd* 


41 


32^  NCF  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

ODORET,  de  Cur.  Graec.  Affect.  L.  xii  ;*  and  Christians  them^ 
selv6s  (piXotfo'tpoi  Tov  0£ou,  philosophers  of  God,  as  in  Clemens, 
Strom.  L.  vi.  p.  642.  Who  these  (piXoVoipoi  are,  he  himself 
explains ;  viz.  oi  docpiag  ipuvrsg^  «r^s  ifavruv  6y]iiiovp'yo\j  xai  5i5atfxa- 
XoD,  TouTgtfTi  yvCi^sug  tou  Omrov  Qsov,  *  those  who  are  lovers  of 
wisdom,  which  is  the  creator  and  teacher  of  all  things,  that 
isj  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God.'  Jonsius,  'de 
Scriptor.  Hist.  Phil.,'  L.  iii.  p.  16,  and  Wolfius,  in  loc.  have 
cited  a  number  of  passages.  From  these  it  may  be  perceiv- 
ed, that  this  sense  of  (?»Xo(ro(p/a  is  not  entirely  new,  but  was  in 
use  as  early  as  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  and  was  subsequent- 
ly very  common  in  the  Christian  church. 

This  interpretation,  moreover,  of  the  word  (piXotfoipia,  as  it 
is  clearly  proved  by  the  usage  of  speech  of  those  times,  is  al- 
so required,  and  rendered  absolutely  necessary,  by  the  whole 
connexion  of  the  discourse,  the  design  of  the  Apostle,  and  the 
character  of  that  period.  I  shall  now  attend  to  this  some- 
what more  minutely,  that  it  may  the  more  plainly  appear,  that 
the  Apostle  is  speaking  of  nothing  else  than  the  ceremonial 
law,  and  that  his  words  cannot  possibly  be  referred  to  the 
Gnostic,  or  to  any  other  philosophy.  And,  in  the  first  place, 
it  is  evident,  that  the  first  part  of  this  Epistle  is  employed  in 
unfolding,  on  the  one  hand,  that  divine  favor  which  has  been 
conferred  upon  all  men  in  common  by  the  redemption  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  and,  on  the  other,  that,  in  particular,  which  has  been 
displayed  to  the  Gentiles ;  and  that  this  exhibition  is  made, 
partly  with  the  view  of  exciting  their  minds  to  admiration  of 
the  divine  benevolence,  and  partly  to  confirm  their  opposition 
to  that  doctrine,  which  defended  the  Mosaic  law,  and  requir- 
ed from  Christians  the  continuance  of  circumcision,  and  other 
ritual  observances.  This  is  the  scope  of  the  First  and  Se- 
cond Chapters  ;  which  I  shall  now  consider  in  detail.  The 
Apostle  first  mentions  the  greatness  of  the  faith  of  the  Colos- 
siaos,  and  their  constancy  in  the  same  (Ch.  i.  3  s.  dxovtfavTss  rnv 
flfijiv  ufAwv,),  to  which  they  had  been  led  through  the  mercy  of 


*  ITftEOD.  Op.  Tom.  IV.  p.  666,  Ed.  Par,  164^— Tr-  ] 


la  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  323 

God  ;  and  exhorts  them  not  only  to  persevere  in  it,  but  alst) 
to  increase  daily  more  and  more.  He  then  begins,  from  verse 
12,  to  extol  the  divine  goodness  and  wisdom,  and  particularly 
that  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ;  vi^hich  is  conspicuous  not  on- 
ly in  his  redemption  of  the  human  race,  but  also  in  his  call- 
ing and  bringing  the  Gentiles  to  a  share  in  the  blessings  ob- 
tained by  Christ,  and  in  his  abolition  of  the  ritual  law ;  which 
was  odious  to  them,  now  that  they  were  engrafted  into  the 
true  church,  and,  with  those  who  had  been  converted  from 
Judaism  to  Christianity,  belonged  as  one  body  to  Christ,  the 
head.  This  union  of  the  two  divisions  of  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
which,  in  verse  20,  he  had  termed  the  reconciliation  of  those 
things  which  are  in  heaven,  and  those  which  are  in  earth,  (as 
Ernesti  first  proved  very  clearly,  in  a  particular  essay  on  the 
subject,)  he  declares,  in  verse  26,  to  be  a  mystery,  a  thing  un- 
known before,  (for  this  is  the  meaning  of  jxugripjov,)  which  had 
been  hidden  from  all  time,  d's'oxsxpufAfjilvov  aero  twv  aiwvwv  xa»  a^ro 
Tuv  ygvswv,  and  was  also  by  the  Jews  themselves,  not  designed- 
ly on  the  part  of  God,  for  it  was  revealed  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  through  their  own  fault,  either  not  at  all,  or  imper- 
fectly understood ;  but  which  was  now  made  known  to  them, 
and  to  others,  to  whom  it  pleased  God  to  reveal  it,  that  it 
might  be  seen,  rig  o  leXovrog  Tvjg  So^rig  cou  fiiu^ripi'ou  Tourou  iv  rtTg  e&- 
vctfiv,  i.  e.  how  wonderful  was  the  divine  goodness  toward  the 
Gentiles,  clearly  manifested  in  that  secret  design  of  bringing 
the  Gentiles  to  a  share  in  the  benefits,  obtained  by  Christ ; 
and  this  is  Christ  in  you,  05  ki  Xpjgo?  iv  {,^Tv,  i.  e.  it  is  evident 
that  this  is  the  divine  intention,  to  make  the  Gentiles  as  well 
as  the  Jews  partakers  of  eternal  salvation,  from  the  circum- 
stance that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  is  preached  to  you,  and  the 
hope  of  salvation,  ^  i'kieig  Trig  dhlrig,  which  before  was  granted 
to  the  Jews  alone,  is  announced,  without  circumcision,  to  you, 
no  less  than  to  them.  But  those  who  had  come  over  from  Ju- 
daism to  Christianity,  were  now  quite  indignant  at  the  Gen- 
tile Christians,  whom  they  found  to  be,  in  this  way,  made 
equal  with  themselves ;  and  were  also  hostile  to  St.  Paul  him- 
self, Ch.  II.  1 :  partly  because  he  taught  that  the  Jews  and 
the  Gentiles  were  on  the  same  footing,  and  partly  because  hfe 


324  NO  TRACES  OF  THK  GNOSTICS 

shewed  the  ceremonial  law  to  be  abolished,  which,  and  parti- 
cularly circumcision,  they  required  to  be  continued  in  the 
Christian  religion.     This  opinion,  carrying  with  it  much  plau- 
sibility, so  harassed  the  minds  of  Christians,  that  the  Apostles 
were  obliged  to  meet  together,  and  with  united  strength  to 
set  themselves  in  opposition  to  this  prevailing  error  of  the 
Jews  ;  and  fortify  the  minds  of  Christians  against  this  opinion 
in  favor  of  the  Jewish  law.     St.  Paul,  therefore,  aroused  by 
the  great  necessity  of  the  case,  and  by  the  extreme  danger  of 
the  C(5lossians,  seriously  admonishes  them,  verse  4,  not  to  per- 
mit themselves  to  be  deceived  by  these  specious  representa- 
tions (^iSavoXoyia),  or  to  be  led  away  from  the  firmness  and 
constancy  of  their  faith  ;  which  admonition  the  Apostle  re- 
peats, and  sets  forth  more  fully,  from  verse  8  ;  as  is  manifest 
from  the  following  verses,  where  he  shews  the  excellence  of 
the  gospel  doctrine  above  the  Jewish  law,  and  the  obligation 
to  follow  and  embrace  the  former,  and  abandon  the  latter,  by 
three  arguments.    The  first  is  this,  that  the  Author  of  the 
gospel  is  the  true  God  (verse  9,  oVi  iv  dvri^  xutoixsI  itSiv  to  ir\ripu> 
fia  rris  ^soTr]rog  tfwfAotTixwg,  i.  e.  in  him  is  truly  divinity  itself,), 
who  knew  very  well  the  will  of  the  Father  in  regard  to  this 
law,  and  is  therefore  a  most  perfect  instructor,  and  infinitely 
to  be  preferred  to  the  Jewish  and  all  other  teachers,  who  re- 
commend the  observance  of  the  ceremonial  law.    The  se- 
cond is,  that  those  good  things,  greater  than  all  others,  which 
the  ritual  law  had  only  faintly  shadowed  forth,  and  prefigured 
by  mere  images,  he  had  actually  produced  by  his  redemption, 
and  conferred  through  a  spiritual  circumcision,  made  in  bap- 
tism, and  sealed  in  justification,  verse  lis.     The  last  is,  that, 
by  his  death  on  the  cross,  he  had  also  destroyed,  transfixed,  as 
it  were,  with  nails,  torn  in  pieces,  and  altogether  abrogated, 
the  ritual  law,  verse  14  s.  sgaXgl-^^ag  to  xa^'  Tjfjuwv  j^ei^o^/paqjov  roTg 
ioyy^adiv  (i.  e.  having  ritual  precepts,)  o  ?v  CcrsvavTlov  r}iuv,  (i.  e. 
which  law  produced  such  a  separation  between  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  and  prevented  them  from  uniting  together  in  peace 
and  fellowship)  xai'  aM  ?pxsv  ex,  x.t.x.    Now,  therefore,  the 
Apostle  proceeds,  in  verse  16,  to  shew,  that,  for  these  reasons, 
Christians  cannot  be  compelled  to  observe  those  rites ;  and. 


IN  THS  NEW  TESTAMENT.  325 

accordingly,  that  the  Jews,  and  the  defenders  of  the  ceremo- 
nial law,  have  no  reason  for  being  inimical  to  the  Gentiles,  or 
for  blaming  the  Christians  (xpiv^Vw  for  xaraxpiv^rw),  because 
they  observe  no  difference  in  meats  and  drinks,  in  festivals 
and  sabbaths,  and  altogether  neglect  the  Jewish  law.  That 
they  who  still  retained  this  law,  carry  with  them  a  great  ap- 
pearance of  modesty,  and  affect  peculiar  piety  and  obedience 
to  the  divine  precepts  (^pri^xela  <rwv  dyysKuv)  ;  but  that  they 
are  vainly  puffed  up  with  human  wisdom,  and  abandon  the 
true  instruction  which  Christ  requires.  At  length  the  Apos- 
tle draws  from  all  this,  in  verse  20  s,  the  following  inference  ; 
If,  therefore,  ye  have  been  made  free  from  the  ceremonial 
law,  through  the  death  of  Christ,  of  which  ye  have  been 
made  partakers  in  baptism,  so  that  ye  are  reckoned,  as  it  wei-e, 
dead  with  him,  why  do  you  still  submit  yourselves  to  its  or- 
dinances, as  if  you  were  in  that  former  condition  ?  Why  do 
you  pay  any  attention  to  those  who  say.  Do  not  eat  this  or  that 
food  !  Which  meats  (the  words  a  ki  iravTa  sis  (p^opav  ttJ  dm- 
X?^<is^  are  parenthetical)  add  nothing  to  real  piety,  but  yield 
to  corruption  in  their  very  use  !  Which,  indeed,  is  nothing 
more  than  a  human  system,  not  enjoined  upon  us  of  the  pre- 
sent day,  xoLTOi  TO.  ivTaX|xara  xai  Sidatfxakias  twv  dvdpw<7fwv,  after  the 
commandments  and  traditions  of  men ;  though  it  has  a  certain 
appearance  of  wisdom,  affecting  great  piety,  modesty,  and 
severity  to  the  body,  which,  in  this  way,  is  deprived  of  that 
attention  which  it  requires,  and  naturally  seeks. 

In  such  a  course  of  argument  as  this,  what  room  is  there 
for  the  absurdities  of  the  Gnostics,  or  the  trifles  of  the  Essenes 
about  the  adoration  of  angels  ?  Who  does  not  at  once  perceive, 
that  a  controversy  of  such  a  nature,  instituted  against  this  class 
of  men,  is  entirely  foreign  from  the  purpose  in  the  explana- 
tion of  an  argument  like  that  before  us ;  or,  at  any  rate,  would 
not  have  deserved  to  be  so  long  dwelt  upon  by  the  Apostle  ? 
The  former  subject,  on  the  contrary,  was  highly  important 
and  proper,  and  moreover  absolutely  necessary  to  be  exhibit- 
ed in  the  clearest  manner ;  since  not  only  a  great  proportion  of 
the  Christians  were  infected  with  that  Jewish  opinion,  respect- 
ing the  necessity  of  still  adhering  to  the  ceremonial  law,  but 


326  NO  TRACES  or  THE  GNpSTICS 

/ 

also  St.  Peter  himself  was  striving,  at  least  in  secret,  through 
a  too  great  fear  of  offending  the  friends  of  the  ceremonial  law, 
to  recommend  it  by  his  own  example  in  abstaining  from  meats 
forbidden  in  it,  and  appeared  to  approve  of  it,  Gal.  ii.  lis.; 
and  on  this  account  caused  great  confusion  among  the  Chris- 
tians, when  they  saw  the  course  he  took  ;  and  not  merely  led 
those  who  were  of  Jewish  origin,  and  Barnabas  himself  also, 
to  imagine  that  it  was  necessary  to  keep  the  law,  but  also 
those  who  had  been  converted  from  among  the  Greeks.  And 
accordingly,  in  many  other  places  also,  and  in  whole  chapters, 
as  Rom.  xiv,  the  Apostle  seriously  admonishes  Christians 
in  regard  to  this  matter.  Nor  did  the  trifles  of  the  Gnostics 
recommend  themselves  by  any  great  plausibility  of  language, 
so  that  the  Apostle  could  not  be  afraid  of  the  Colossians 
being  deceived  by  it,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter.  Not  so, 
however,  with  that  Jewish  opinion :  first,  because  the 
ceremonial  law  had  been  once  given  by  God  himself ;  next, 
because  the  Jews  had  been  accustomed  from  childhood 
to  reverence  Moses,  and  their  eyes  had  become  used  to 
the  pomp  of  the  sacrifices,  and  of  the  High-Priest,  and  of 
the  whole  priesthood,  to  which  they  found  nothing  to  com- 
pare, for  external  grandeur,  either  in  Christ  himself,  or  any 
where  among  the  Christians,  or  in  the  teachers,  or  in  the  re- 
ligious worship ;  every  thing,  on  the  contrary,  being  mean, 
humble,  and  simple  in  its  character,  and  all  pomp  and  out- 
ward show  being  removed.  My  interpretation,  therefore, 
seems  to  be  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  facts. 

There  are  some  things,  however,  in  this  portion  of  Scrip- 
ture, which  must  be  more  accurately  explained,  and  which  I 
have  found  to  be  urged  very  strongly  by  those,  whose  opinion 
difl^ers  from  my  own ;  and  a  reason  must  be  given  for  certain 
words  and  interpretations,  which  I  have  given  above.  If,  in  do- 
ing this,  I  shall  be  thought  by  the  learned  to  have,  here  and  there, 
exceeded  proper  bounds,  and  to  have  dwelt  too  much  upon 
the  illustration  of  refined  terms,  and  phrases,  which  have  been 
already  treated  of  by  men  eminent  in  this  department  of  lite- 
rature ;  they  must  ascribe  this  to  my  desire  to  benefit  young 
persons,  who  are  engaged  in  studies  of  this  nature.    And,  in 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  327 

the  first  place,  the  reason  why  the  supporters  of  the  opposite 
opinion  think  that  (piXocfocpia,  ch.  ii.  8,  cannot  mean  the  Jewish 
law,  is  this ;  that  the  Apostle  adds,  nai  xsvr}g  diraryig,  xaTot  t^v 
ifapaSotftv  <rwv  av&pw'^rwv,  xard  to-  ^oi/sTa  too  xntf^Aou,  xai  ou  xam 
X^itfTov  (and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the 
rudiments  of  the  world,  and  not  after  Christ.).  This,  they  think, 
cannot  apply  to  the  law,  which  was  enacted  by  God  ;  but  is 
peculiarly  suitable  to  the  Gnostic,  or  Oriental  philosophy.  As 
I  think  differently,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  inquire,  whether, 
by  a  correct  interpretation,  these  words  may  not  be  made 
perfectly  appHcable  to  the.  subject  to  which  I  have  referred 
them. 

It  must  be  chiefly  borne  in  mind,  that  the  Apostle  is  speak- 
ing, in  this  place,  not  of  the  law  in  general,  or  the  Jewish 
Theology,  which  was  nothing  but  the  knowledge  of  the  law, 
and  particularly  the  ceremonial,  as  we  have  already  seen  ; 
but  of  the  law,  as  it  then  was  :  viz.  deformed  with  the  in- 
ventions and  absurdities  of  the  Jews  ;  and  which,  though  it 
had  been  annulled  by  the  death  of  Christ,  was  required  to  be 
still  observed  among  Christians  themselves.  Very  correctly, 
therefore,  this  Theology  may  be  termed  cpikotfoar^ia  xsv/i,  vain 
philosophy,  for  the  reasons  just  stated  ;  which  are  express- 
ed also  in  the  words  that  follow,  xara  tt^v  irapaSotfiv,  x,  <r,  X., 
after  the  tradition  of  men,  &c.  With  the  same  propriety  may 
it  be  further  called  <p»Xoo'o(pja  t^^  aitarvig^  i.  e.  a^ariiXii,  deceit- 
ful ;  for  any  one  might  easily  be  deceived  by  it,  as  it  com- 
mended the  law,  which  was  given  by  God  himself,  and  which, 
as  I  have  already  observed,  the  Jews  had  been  accustomed 
to  admire  from  their  childhood,  on  account  of  its  outward 
splendor.  Now  this  doctrine,  inculcating  and  commending 
the  Jewish  law,  he  calls  (piXoCo^ia  xara  ti^v  •Wa/ja^oO'iv  Twv  avSi/Jw-jrwy, 

i.  e.  a  human   system.*     The  word  •jrapa^otfj^   is    exactly 


*  I  have  thus  rendered  the  words  jtatTa  tjjf  irapeiS^ociv  tSv  dy^puTrui, 
in  conformity  with  an  elegant  use  of  the  preposition  Kara^  which  is  em- 
ployed by  the  Greeks  in  place  of  the  substantive  verb,  or  of  the  adjec- 
tive or  substantive  in  the  Genitive  case.  Thus,  in  the  inscription  of  St. 
Matthew's  gospel,  to  /c«t*  M«tTS-«7o»  '^vxyyihrn,  the  gospel  of  Mat- 


328  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

suitable  to  the  Jewish  theology,  which  was  pecuHariy  distin- 
guished by  this  name ;  as  is  evident  from  several  places  in 
the  New  Testament.  See  Matt.  xv.  2.  3.  6.  Mark,  vii.  3. 
5.  8.  Gal.  I.  14.  For  it  signifies  any  system  of  instruction 
whatever ;  particularly,  that  which  relates  to  external  wor- 
ship, in  which  sense,  undoubtedly,  it  occurs  in  i.  Cor.  xi.  2, 
where  Luther  has  well  rendered  it,  *  die  Weise,'  (the  ordi- 
nances). But  the  ritual  law  is  called  •jra^a^oo'ij  twv  av^^w^wv,  a 
human  system,  either  because  it  was  enlarged,  or  rather  de- 
filed, with  innumerable  inventions  of  men,  which  were  more 
scrupulously  observed  than  even  the  commandments  of  God 
himself;  (which  is  the  opinion  of  Deyling,  in  his  *  Diss,  de 
Chirographi  et  Principum  legalium  abolitione,'  contained  in 
Obs.  S.  Tom.  IV.  p.  58%)  or  because,  now  that  Christ  had 
died,  the  observance  of  it  was  still  enforced,  which  certainly 
was  nothing  more  than  the  system  of  men ;  or,  finally,  be- 
cause it  was  imperfect,  and  was  of  no  avail  for  the  attainment 
of  inward  holiness,  and  eternal  salvation  ;  so  that  it  is  called 
human  in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  whole  law  is  termed 
tftt^^,  and  also  the  ritual  law  itself,  in  Heb.  vn.  16.  ix.  10,  in 
order  to  express  its  imperfection ;  as  is  well  known.  Neither 
of  these  opinions  is  contradicted  by  facts,  or  the  usage  of 
speech.  The  Apostle  then  adds,  xaTd  -ra  (froixsTa  <rou  xotffAou ; 
(after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,)  in  the  explanation  of  which 
words,  ancient  and  later  commentators  are  very  much  divided 
in  opinion.  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  understand  them  to 
mean  the  stars.  Though  I  shall  not  deny,  that  the  term  (froi. 
yfoi  was  formerly  applied  to  the  stars,  and  that  these  are  un- 


thew,  or,  which  is  Matthew's,  or  written  by  Matthew ;  as  also  in  Jose- 
phus,  oi  Teic  »«fcTA  noiMffif/oF  vpA^ut  <»'vae^p*4'itv'r«c,  meaning  clearly: 
t^ose  who  wrote  the  history  of  the  actions  of  Pompey.  So  $  K.ctrd 
xirTii  iiKsttoa-vvh,  is  the  same  as  what  is  sometimes  callp.d  ^  tjc  or  JVa 
ziarrto):  S'uaitoauvn^  or  simply  i'tKXiotrvm  tmc  ?rtVT«a)f.  So  also  tj  »ar 
Uxeyh  vpo^d'tTts,  the  free  kindness ;  and  the  Greeks  frequently  use  the 
expression,  ot  xctr'  iKXoym  avfptt,  chosen  men.  In  Acts,  xvii.  38,  rme 
Tur  K»^'  vfAtit  TTomtmr  some  of  your  own  poets.  According  to  thitf 
elegant  Greek  usage  to  <c*t*  in  this  passage  must  be  expteined  ?  In : 
stead  of  which  tt?  Ttpi  is  sometimes  used. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMEiNl.  321^ 

doubtedly  referred  to  in  ii.  Pet.  iii.  10.  12,  where  the  Apostle 
had  reference,  without  question,  to  0]u}i;  nnpiD,  which  was 
imitated  also  by  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers ;  yet  the 
context  forbids  v^  to  understand  the  word  in  this  sense,  in  the 
passage  before  us.  We  must  look,  therefore,  for  some  other 
signification.  The  word  (froixsTa  properly  means,  letters,  and 
is  used  in  this  sense  by  the  ancient  grammarians  :  but  further 
signifies,  the  first  principles  of  any  subject,  which  are  taught 
young  pupils ;  according  to  the  phraseology  of  the  Hebrews, 
who  call  the  ground- work  of  a  thing  nnPiD.  Whence,  also, 
the  Jewish  teachers  call  the  elementary  parts  of  philosophy, 
and  the  first  principles  of  a  subject,  by  the  names  nio;  and  *ip. 
derived  from  '^d\  Hence,  however,  the  term  c-a  tfroixsra  came 
to  be  applied  to  religion,  and  signifies  its  very  beginnings,  the 
first  instruction  in  Christian  doctrine  ;  as  in  Heb.  v.  12,  where, 
by  an  allowable  pleonasm,  (See  Horat.  Sat.  L.  i.  Sat.  1. 1. 26, 
where  the  phrase  *  elementa  prima '  is  used,)  is  added, 
T^s  oLffx/is,  which,  according  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  speaking, 
is  for  •jr'puTa ;  and  this  latter  word  is  applied  to  the  first  prin- 
ciples of  i-eligion,  in  i.  Cor.  xv.  3.*  In  the  same  way  the 
word  tfToip^s'w  was  applied  to  religion,  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
pressing, both  the  manner  of  outward  life,  and  the  inward 
feelings  of  the  heart ;  this  mode  of  speaking  being  derived  not 
merely  from  the  Hebrew  usage,  in  the  word  "fyn,  but  from 
the  practice  of  the  Greek  writers,  who  use  in  the  same  sense 
the  word  /3aivw.  Thus,  in  Gal.  vi.  16 ;  oVoi  <r^  xavovi  toutw 
(fToij^^jtfouCjv ;  in  the  explanation  of  which  words  commentators 
have  been  very  much  embarrassed.  Every  thing  is  plain, 
however;  if  this  sense  of  tfroixs'w  only  be  borne  in  mind.  The 
meaning  is  this  ;  whosoever,  in  their  faith  and  life,  follow  this 
rule  (viz.  that  which  the  Apostle  had  given  in  verse  15,  iv 
XpitfTw  'Iiitfou  OUTS  'TfspjTojXTj  71,  X.  T.  X.) ;  or,  who  SO  believe  and 
act,  as  if  they  thought  that  nothing  is  of  any  avail  in  the 
Christian  religion  but  xa»vii  xritfig,  a  new  creature,  shall  be 
saved.     In  the  same  sense  this  word  Ctoixs'w  occurs  in  Phil, 


42 


330  NO  TRACES  OP   THE  GNOSTICS 

III.  16,  where  I  should  apply  it  principally  to  the  mind ;  dince 
(pftovsTv  is  added,  which  I  understand  as  referring  to  a  prudent 
manner  of  life ;  and  the  meaning  is  this :  that  rule  which  we 
have  thus  far  followed,  we  ought  to  maintain  in  our  way  of 
thinking  and  of  living ;  for  the  infinitives  (/roix^Tv  and  (pponTv 
are  governed  by  <5sr understood,  according  to  an  elegant  usage 
of  the  Greek  writers,  of  which  Krebs  has  cited  some  ex- 
amples, in  his  Comment,  ad  Deer.  Rom.  pro.  Jud.  p.  428. 
Now  from  all  this  it  may  be  seen,  that,  in  the  passage  before 
us,  ra  tfrojp^sra  is  to  be  understood  as  referring  to  religion,  and, 
indeed,  to  that  divine  instruction  which  the  Jews  had,  when 
they  were  only,  as  it  were,  novices  and  infants.     But  they 
were  such,  the  Apostle  tells  us  in  Gal.  iv.  3,  so  long  as  they 
were  bound  under  the  irksome  and  severe  discipline  of  the 
ceremonial  law ;    which  law,  the  Apostle  says,  Ch.  in.  24, 
was  a  schoolmaster  until  Christy  or  until  the  death  of  Christ, 
whereby  we  are  delivered  from  it.     Therefore  by  ra  rfrou 
ysTa  Tou  x6(j'fji,ou,  i.  e.  TotJcou,  in  Hebrew,  n^n  DSi;r  "nTo^  is  to  be 
understood  the  ceremonial  law  itself;  to  which,  as  it  was  im- 
perfect, is  therefore  opposed  the  perfect  doctrine  of  Christ, 
(p\Ko(to(pia  xoLTo.  Xpitfrov.     This  is  very  plainly  shewn  by  verse 
20  ;  dflr's^avSTS  tfOv  <rw  XpKJ'Tw  ctflTo  rwv  tfroip^ciwv  tou  xoo'fiLou,  where 
the  reference  is  evidently  to  the  laws  of  Moses,  from  the  ob- 
servance of  which  we  have  been  freed.     And  no  less  clearly 
is  this  meaning  established  by  Gal.  iv.  3 ;  where  the  Apostle 
says,   ^l^^'iSi   oVs    'JfASv  vrjiriot,    C-n-o   TO.  (fTQi-)(£Ta  rou    xorf/xou  ^fjisv  Ss- 
oouXwH-^voi;  which  (frotxsTa  are,  in   verse  9,  called  daGsvT}  xolI 
ifTUix^}  in  comparison  to  the  good  things  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  those  (fToix^Ta,  having  no  power  to  procure  salvation. 
And  finally,  my  interpretation  is  exceedingly  strengthened  by 
the  circumstance,  that  these  tfToi^sra  are  called  (froix^Ta  <rou 
-xotffxou.    For  it  is  the  usage  of  the  sacred  writings,  to  call  by 
this  name  the  Jewish  law  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  compari- 
son to  the  Gospel,  which  was  the  doctrine  concerning  /Satf*- 
Xsj'a  Twv  ou^avwv,  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  of  God,  to  which 
is  opposed  o  xotf^og ;  as  is  very  plainly  shewn  by  the  words  wV 
?wvrsg  ^v  x6(ffi(f),  in  verse  •  20 ;  i.  e.  as  if  ye  were  still  in  that 
former  condition  of  the  Old  Testament.— The  sense  of  the 


IN  THE  XEW  TESTAMENT.  ^1 

Verse  under  discussion,  therefore,  I  think  to  be  this :  Let  no 
man  impose  upon  you  by  that  deceitful  (for  the  Apostle  refers 
to  verse  4)  and  vain  Jewish  doctrine,  which  recommends  the 
Mosaic  law ;  and  exacts  the  observance  of  that  which  is  a 
mere  human  system,  and  which  (inasmuch  as  it  was  once  de- 
livered by  God)  contains  merely  the  first  and  imperfect  in- 
struction of  men  under  the  Old  Testament ;  which  is  nothing 
in  comparison  of  the  more  perfect  system  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  Apostle,  therefore,  brings  forward  two  arguments,  where- 
with to  fortify  the  minds  of  Christians  against  that  vain  and 
deceitful  Jewish  doctrine,  which  required  the  observance  of 
the  ritual  law ;  the  first,  that  this  is  a  doctrine  of  men  ;  a  point 
which  he  explains  more  fully  in  what  follows,  by  shewing, 
that  this  law  has  been  abrogated  by  Christ :  the  second,  that 
the  ceremonial  law  contained  simply  the  first  teaching,  and 
small  beginnings  of  the  worship  of  God  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  of  which  Christians  stood  in  no  need,  inasmuch  as 
they  had  the  much  more  perfect  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
by  far  the  most  excellent  worship.  The  word  tfuXaywysij  is 
from  tfuXov,  or  tfxuXov,  a  booty,*  and  ayw ;  and  signifies,  there- 
fore, to  rob,  to  carry  oflf  as  a  prey,  and  further,  to  take  any 
advantage  of  a  person,  either  by  force,  or  by  fraud.  Hence 
arises  a  very  suitable  interpretation :  "  beware  least  any  man, 
by  the  deception  of  this  judaizing  doctrine,  deprive  you  of 
that  freedom  from  the  ceremonial  law,  which  has  been  pur- 
chased by  Christ ;"  which,  moreover,  agrees  entirely  with  the 
character  of  the  Jews,  and  of  all  the  defenders  of  the  Mosaic 
law.  Comp.  Matt,  xxiii.  15.  Certainly  all  these  things  do 
not  accord  well  together,  if  you  understand  the  reference  to 
be  to  the  Gnostic  or  Oriental  philosophy. 


*  Students  of  the  sacred  writings    would  do  well  to  observe  another, 

though  somewhat  less  frequent  sense  of  this  word.     It  is  used  in  the  N. 

T.  to  signify  goods  of  any  kind ;  e.  g.  Luke,  xi.  22 ;  as  is  shewn  not  only 

by  the  parallel  place,  Matt.  xii.  29,  where  we  find  t«  y*«/»,  instead  of 

T»  a-KvKct,  but  also  by  the  usage  of  the  Hebrews,  who  apply  the  term 

^Sj^,  booty,  to  all  kinds  of  goods  ;];as  Prov.  1. 13,  xvi.  19,  Dan.  xi.  24, 

y  T 
Esth.  111.  13 ;  in  which  last  passage  the  Septuagint  has  t«'  vrdfx^frat. 


333 


:N0  traces  of  the  GNOSTUi 


The  same  observation  may  be  tnade  in  regard  to  what  fol- 
lows ;  for  every  thing  relates  to  the  ceremonial  law,  and  its 
abolition,  concerning  which  the  Apostle  speaks  so  plainly  in 
verse  14,  that  this  passage  is  exactly  in  point.     But  before  I 
say  any  thing  of  this  verse,  a  few  observations  must  be  made 
in  regard  to  verse  9  ;  which  I  should  have  omitted  had  I  not 
observed,  that  learned  men  lay  much  stress  upon  the  word 
^X^^wfAa  in  particular,  and  give  it  I  know  not  how  many  dif- 
ferent applications.     For  some  think  that  they  have  drawn 
from  this  word  a  very  weighty  proof,  that  the  Apostle  is,  in 
this  passage,  opposing  the  Gnostics,  and  particularly  their 
Aeons  ;    which  they  usually  distinguished    by  this  name. 
Others,  however,  think  that  the  reference  is  to  the  Oriental 
philosophy,  or  to  the  Essenes  ;  and  suppose  that  this  way  of 
speaking  is  taken  from  the  temple,  of  which  God  himself 
was  the  •jr'Krjpuika  ;  and  that  the  Apostle  argues  thus  :  "  Christ 
is  the  head  of  the  whole  church,  and  greater  than  all  the  an- 
gels ;  we  must  not  think  of  any  other  mediator,  therefore, 
in  our  approaches  to  God  (as  the  Essenes  did,  thinking  that 
we  must  have  an  angel  as  a  mediator  with  God),  since  we 
are  ourselves  the  temple  of  God."     I    certainly  never  saw 
an  interpretation  more  far  fetched  than  this  ;  and  cannot  sup- 
press my  astonishment,  that  men  in  other  respects   very 
learned,  and  skilful  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  should    have 
brought  forward  such  an  idea :  it  being  as  plain  as  possible, 
that  the  Apostle,  in  the  use  of  the  word  -rX-^/iwfjLa,  imitates  the 
phraseology  of  the  Hebrews,  who,  as  Schoettgen,  Hor.  Heb. 
and  after  hin  Wolfius,  in  loc.  have  observed,  use  the  word 
«SP  to  express  the  whole  of  a  thing,  or  all  that  belongs  to  it. 
Thus  in  Psalm  xxiv.  1,  hkiSd^  y^xn  n^n^h;   l.  12.  and  i.  Cor. 
X.  26,  flrXrj^wfxa  rris  yrig.     According  to  this  usage,  -rX^^^wfjia  rrjg 
agoT»)T05  means  the  whole  of  divinity  ;  or  the  divinity  itself, 
with  all  its  attributes,  as  in  Eph.  iii.  19.  -ffSiv  rh  'rXvj^w/xa.Tou  0g- 
ou,  the  sum  total  of  those  divine  blessings,  which  are  confer- 
red upon  the  faithful.    This  latter  passage  throws  light  upon 
the  words  which  follow  :  xal  id^s  Iv  auTw  (for  ^»'  durov)  'jesieXr- 
fwftsvoi ;  i.  e.  by  whom,  or,  by  whose  kindness,  also,  you  have 
been  enriched  with  the  gifts  of  divine  grace  :  which  gifts  the 


IX  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  333 

Apostle  then  -enumerates,  viz.  faith,  hoHness,  and  the  pardon 
of  sins,  with  words  and  figures  taken  from  the  ritual  law. 
All  these  things  he  mentioned,  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  the 
excellence  of  Christ,  and  his  doctrine,  above  that  Jewish  no- 
tion ;  and  the  duty  of  embracing  the  former,  and  rejecting 
the  latter.  What  connexion,  then,  is  there,  between  such  a 
course  of  argument,  and  the  Aeons  of  the  Gnostics,  or  the 
worship  of  angels,  required  by  the  Essenes  ? 

And  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  in  verse  14  s,  the  Apostle  is 
speaking  of  the  ceremonial  law,  which  he  shews  to  have  been 
blotted  out  on  the  cross  ;  and  thus  that  the  distinction  between 
Jews  and  Gentiles  was  done  away,  and  peace  had  been  made 
between  them.  For  xs'porpa<?ov  ToTg  Uy^^adi,  the  ritual  writing, 
or  that  which  related  to  rites,  is  the  same  as  vo'/xog  twv  t^ToXwv  Iv 
ooyftatf/,  in  Eph.  ii.  15,  the  law,  which  consisted  in  ceremonial 
ordinances  and  rites,  as  Deyling  has  shewn,  1.  c.  To  this 
law  he  elegantly  applies  the  name  x-'P°7po'-9ov,  which  has  the 
same  signification  as  /pViui-a,  i.  e.  a  writing  :  and  he  thus  not 
only  alludes  to  the  use  of  this  word  in  pecuniary  matters,  as 
is  plain  from  the  words  klaKB\-\,as  and  ■n'potfTjXwo'ar  ;  but  also,  as 
Ernesti  has  shewn,  1.  c.  and  in  N-  th.  Bibl.  T.  i.  p.  159,  to  the 
difference  between  the  law  and  the  gospel  ;  inasmuch  as  the 
law,  being  first  promulged  by  writing,  is  called  p(;^ipoypa9ov, 
as  II.  Cor.  ni.  6,  ypafxfia  ;  while  the  gospel  is  called  'tfvsujxa,  the 
Spirit,  because  its  first  promulgation  was  made,  without  letters 
and  writing,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  speaking  through  Christ  and 
the  Apostles.  It  is  called,  moreover,  to  xa^'  '/jf^-wv  p^^jpoypacpov, 
i.  e.  standing  in  the  way  of  you  Gentiles,  as  a  cause  of  sepa- 
ration ;  I  think,  therefore,  that  >)ixwv  is  put  for  6fJ^wv,  these  terms 
being  often  used  for  each  other.;  as  in  Eph.  ir.  1.  5,  where 
those  who,  in  verse  1,  are  called  ^M-a?,  are,  at  the  end  of  the 
parenthesis,  called  V"s ;  and  then  follows,  Xap«V<  Icrs  o'g<j'w(rjxs- 
voi.  1  would,  therefore,  refer  to  xa^'  >j/ji<wv  to  the  Gentiles,  but 
the  words  which  follow,  o  ?v  Cflrsvavn'ov  ^/xn/,  tp  the  Jews  ;  and  I 
think,  with  GrotiUs,  that  they  ought  to  be  interpreted  from  the 
usage  of  the  Hebrew  verb  "i^y,  to  oppress,  from  which  comes 
"^J,  which  is,  in  many  places,  rendered  by  the  Greek  interpre- 
ters, SflTsvavTioff  ;  and  I  would  thus  understand  the  phrase ;  hy 


334  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

which  we  also  were  oppressed^  in  reference  to  the  irksomenesii 
of  the  Levitical  worship.  This  worship,  however,  Chnst  is 
now  said  to  have  entirely  annulled,  and  to  have  taken  away 
the  force  of  the  law  which  enjoined  its  observance,  (■jrpotftjXw- 
(fas  ctuTo  Tw  (Traupw)  and  to  have  deprived  of  their  dignity  and 
authority  all  those,  who  thus  strongly  urged  the  necessity  of 
adherence  to  it,  (for  I  understand  dpx^s  xaj  slovdias  to  mean, 
not  the  devil,  as  Grotius  thinks,  but,  according  to  Deyling's 
view,  the  Jews,  who,  in  i.  Cor.  ii.  6,  are  called  ap^^ovrsj  tou 
a/wvo^  rovTov  ;  and  also  all,  who,  either  by  their  authority  or  re- 
commendation, were  able  to  compel  others  to  the  observance 
of  that  law,)  and  to  have  exposed  them  to  signal  scorn  {ISsiy- 
lioLTKfsv  sv  <n'a^|>)(r/a)  in  a  pubhc  manner,  that  all  might  perceive, 
that  this  law  was  no  more  of  any  force  ;  and,  as  it  were,  to 
have  triumphed  over  them.  And  it  is  plain  that  the  Apostle 
had  reference  to  the  same  thing  in  verse  16,  and  17 ;  since 
he  draws  an  inference  from  what  he  had  said,  and  makes  an 
excellent  comparison  between  the  tfxia  <rwv  fxsXXovrc^v,  and  the 
tfcjfxa  Tou  XpirfTou.  For  tfxia  means  a  faint  shadowing  forth,  a 
type,  or  symbolical  representation  ;  tfw/xa,  therefore,  signifies 
the  thing  or  blessing  itself ;  whence  we  obtain  a  sense  not 
only  very  elegant,  but  perfectly  suitable  to  the  subject,  and  to 
the  whole  context  ;  viz.  "  in  things  of  this  kind,  or,  in  the 
whole  ceremonial  law,  there  were  only  to  be  found  images  of 
benefits  to  come  ;  but  in  Christ,  i.  e.  in  the  New  Testament, 
were  the  benefits  themselves.  The  Apostle  makes  use  of  the 
same  comparison,  with  a  slight  difference,  in  Heb.  x.  1  ;  and 
also  JosEPHus,  de  Bell.  Jud.  Lib.  ii.  c.  2.  §.  5.  Ed..Oxon. 
1720.  • 

In  verses  18,  and  19,  he  describes  more  minutely  those  who 
held  the  Christians  in  contempt,  because  they  laid  aside  the 
Jewish  law  ;  in  order  to  put  the  Colossians  the  more  upon 
their  guard  against  them.  These  same  verses,  however,  have 
led  some  learned  writers  to  suppose  that  the  Gnostics,  or  the 
Essenes,  who  they  think  may,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  termed 
Gnostics,  are  here  intended  ;  principally,  because  in  this,  and 
other  places,  the  Apostle  opposes  the  worship  of  angels,  in 
which  they  suppose  that  he  referred  to  both  those  classes  of 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


335 


men,  who  maintained  that  angels  ought  to  be  devoutly  wor- 
shipped, as  intercessors  with  God.  We  must  inquire,  there- 
fore, whether  we  are  obliged  to  understand  men  of  this  kind 
in  the  present  passage  ;  or  whether  we  can  find  another  in- 
terpretation, agreeable  to  the  usage  of  speech,  and  to  the  con- 
text itself.  I  shall  first,  however,  make  a  few  observations  in 
regard  to  the  opinion,  that  the  Essenes  paid  religious  worship 
and  honor  to  the  angels  ;  after  which  I  shall  consider  the  pas- 
sage before  us. 

With  respect,  then,  to  this  opinion,  which  is  maintained  by 
some  very  learned  commentators,  and,  among  these,  Grotius, 
Price,  and  after  him  Michaelis,  in  his  Comm.  in  loc,  it  seems 
to  be  very  doubtful,  and  without  foundation  in  history.  For 
there  is  not  sufficient  certainty  in  the  testimonies  which  have 
been  adduced,  to  lead  us  to  the  inference  that  angels  were 
worshipped  by  the  Essenes.  One  proof  adduced  from  Jose- 
PHus,  de  Bell.  Jud.  Lib.  II.  c.8.  §7.  Ed.  Oxon.  1720,  (for 
that  which  is  cited  from  Philo  By  Price,  ought  not  to  have 
been  mentioned)  has   some  plausibility.     It  is  as  follows  : 

avrCtv  §i^»a,  xai  ra  twv  dyys'Xwv  ovo'/xara.  "  They  swear,  that 
they  will  abstain  from  robbery,  and  will  keep  with  equal  re- 
verence the  books  of  their  sect,  and  the  names  of  the  an- 
gels." This  testimony,  however,  is  not  sufficiently  certain ; 
and  there  are  two  objections,  moreover,  which  may  be  made 
to  it.  In  the  first  place,  this  passage  of  Josephus  is  very  ob- 
scure  ;  for  what  is  the  meaning  of  "  keeping  the  names  of 
the  angels  ?"  Does  it  signify,  honoring  the  angels  with 
divine  worship  ?  Let  the  learned  decide  !  But,  further, 
this  passage  has  undoubtedly  been  corrupted,  as  has  been 
shewn  by  Havercamp,  the  very  learned  editor  of  Jose- 
phus ;  who  thinks  that  for  dyyiXuv  should  be  read  ayvs»wv  ; 
so  that  the  Essenes  are  stated  to  have  bound  themselves  by 
an  oath,  not  to  betray  to  the  uninitiated  the  rites,  and  names 
of  the  methods,  whereby  they  were  wont  to  be  cleansed 
and  purified.  Josephus  had  made  mention  of  ayvsia  in  this 
sense,  in  the  fifth  section  of  this  same  chapter.  And,  indeed, 
if  .by  (fvv7r}fr\<fsiv  Tot  ovofXafa  cwv  ay^sXwv,  he  had  meant  thf 


33t)  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

worship  of  angels,  although  the  usage  of  speech  by  no  means 
allows  of  such  an  interpretation  of  his  words,  Josephus  cer- 
tainly would  have  explained  this  point  more  fully  afterwards, 
where  he  sets  forth  more  minutely  the  religion  and  customs 
of  the  Essenes.  Nor  does  this  idea  agree  with  the  character 
of  those  times ;  since  it  is  well  known  that  the  Jews,  after 
the  Babylonish  captivity,  altogether  abstained  from  idolatry, 
which  the  worship  of  angels,  if  there  was  any,  must  certainly 
be  accounted.  The  opinion  itself,  therefore,  in  respect  to  the 
worship  offered  to  angels  by  the  Essenes,  which  the  Apostle 
is  thought  to  have  been  opposing,  is  very  uncertain  ;  a  point, 
however,  which  ought,  above  all  others,  to  have  been  clearly 
established. 

But  what  is  to  be  done,  then,  with  the  passage  before  us, 
in  which  the  Apostle  has  certainly  mentioned  worship  offer- 
ed to  angels  ?     Let  us  see.     It  must  be  particularly  borne  in 
mind,  that  the  genitive  tuv  ayysXwv  is  to  be  referred  not  only 
to  ^f^tfyisia,  but  also  to  Ta<n'Sivo(ppo(fvvyi.      But  '^pri(fxsia  <rwv  dyys'Xwv, 
as  Ernes Ti  .has  shewn,  N.  th.  Biblioth.  T.  in.  p.  420,  means 
the  same  as  ik\o'^pri(fxsiUf  in  verse  23,  which  is  there  joined 
with  the  word  <ra':r£<vo(p^oo'uv>].     But  ^pri^xsioL  does  not  refer  to 
inward  worship,  (as  even  Wolfius  has  shewn,  at  this  place, 
though  he  has  erred  in  saying,  that  the  word  ^^vjCxeia  is  never 
followed  by  the  genitive  of  the  object,  to  which  the  worship 
is  offered ;  which  Krebs,  in  his  Observ.  on  this  place,  has 
shewn  to  be  a  thing  of  very  frequent  occurrence,)  but  is  used 
with  reference  to  that  part  of  religion,  which  consists  in  ex- 
ternals ;  and  this  interpretation  is  rendered  necessary,  in  the 
present  passage,  by  the  whole  context,  and  agrees  with  the 
usage  not  only  of  the  sacred  writers,  (as  James,  i.  26,  where 
^firi<fxog  means  one,  who  thinks  that  he  complies  with  the  re- 
quirements of  religion,  by  observing  some  outward  appear- 
ances of  holiness  ;)  but  also  of  Greek  authors.     There  is  a 
remarkable  place  in  Philo,  in  his  work  entitled, '  Quod  dete- 
rior  potiori  insidiari  soleat,'  p.  159,  Ed.  Franc.   1691,  where 
he  says  of  a  hypocritical  man,  ^pri(fxsiav  dvT<  otfioVajToj  Tjyov^svos. 
This  is  also  strongly  confirmed  by  the  interpretations  of  He- 
sychius  in  his  Glossary ;  where  ^py}<f^og  is  explained  by  ktpo^ 


IW  THP  NEW  XESTAMENT,  337 

0»fo^,  i.  e.  one  who  liolds  false  opinions  in  regard  to  holiness 
and  the  mode  of  procuring  the  divine  favor ;  and  ^pid^os, 
which  is  the  same  as  ^pr}(fxos,  by  'KSfirrhSy  that  is,  one  who  is  in 
any  respect  given  to  affectation,  and  also  by  ^sitfi^aifAwv,  a  su- 
perstitious person,  one  who  seeks  the  divine  favor  by  methods 
which  cannot  obtain  it.  In  regard  to  the  meaning  of  Ss'Xwv  Jv 
T«*eivo(p^oo'j>v>j  xa/  ^pijo'xgia,  commentators  are  very  much  em- 
barrassed. The  explanation,  "  affecting  humility  and  piety," 
is  the  most  natural,  and  suitable  to  the  usage  of  speech.  For 
it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  a  somewhat  refined  use  of  the 
verb  ^^Xw  or  ^Ss'Xw,  that  when  simply  joined  to  another  verb, 
or  placed  in  connection  with  a  preposition,  it  signifies  a  some- 
what vehement  desire  of  any  thing,  and  also,  particularly  in 
composition,  affectation  of  any  thing.  This  signification  is 
found  not  only  in  the  Greek  writers,  but  also  in  the  New  Tes^. 
tament,  as  Markland  has  shewn,  in  his  notes  on  Lysias.*  Thus 
in  John,  vni.  44,  Tag  s-ffiSfu/xjag  <rou  ^arpog  C/xwv  ^s'Xsts  iroisrv,  "  ye 
do  voluntarily  and  freely,  and  with  pleasure  and  eagerness  ; 
ye  eagerly  do."  Ch.  vu.  17,  sav  tis  ^sXt}  to  ^iXruLo.  auro?  iroisTv, 
i.  e.  if  any  one  desires  ;  and  Ch.  vi.  21,  ^^sXov  \aQsTv  dorhv  slg 
TO  ffXordv,  "  they  willingly  received  him  into  the  ship." — This 
usage  is  very  common  also  in  the  Hebrew  language,  where  it 
answers  to  yBV},  which,  joined  with  :3,  signifies,  to  be  exceed- 
ingly delighted  with  any  thing,  so  that  one  vehemently  de- 
sires it ;  and  it  is  rendered  by  the  Septuagint  either  by  ^sXw 
£v  Tiv/,  where  they  have  imitated  either  an  elegant  Greek,  or  a 
Hebrew  usage,  or  by  iv5oxs(^  ;  as  in  u.  Sam.  xv.  26,  ^n^an  xS 
^5,  oux  7j3-£Xr]xa  8v  rfo/,  i.  Sam.  xvui.  22.  Ps.  cxLvn.  10,  oux  Iv  Tjf 
8wa(ftSi(t  Tou  iVcrou  S-sXiyrfs*,  ouSs  iv  tolTs  xv^fjuaig  tou  dvSphs  svSoxsT,  i. 
Kings,  X.  9.  Of  the  same  kind  also  is  i.  Mace.  iv.  42,  where 
the  words  ^sXriral  vo'jxou  mean,  those  who  were  eager  for  the 
law.  From  this  signification,  therefore,  of  the  verb  3-s'Xw,  its 
compounds  are  to  be  explained ;  as  ^SsXoVovoj,  i.  e.  he  who, 
for  the  sake  of  a  little  vain  glory,  desires  to  appear  laborious, 
in  Aelian,  de  Nat.  Anim.  iv.  43  ;  also  i^sXatfreiog,  an  elegant, 


*[  Lys.  Op.; p.  616,  Ed.Reiske,  Lips.  1772.— 2V.j 
43 


338  NO  TRACES  or   THE  UN08TICS 

effeminate  man,  one  who  affects  polish  and  urbanity,  in  He- 
LiODOBUs,  Aeth.  Lib.  vu ;  i^s\6(focpog,  one  who  affects  wisdom ; 
and  in  the  same  manner  also  i^sXo^-pridxog,  one  who  desires  to 
appear  religious.     Hence  ^^-sXoa-^Tjo'xsra,  verse  23,  does  not 
meaa,  a  cunningly  devised  worship,  formed  after  their  own  fan- 
cy, as  Luther  renders  it,  and  as  Grotius  also  thinks  it  should 
be  interpreted ;  but,  according  to  this  usage  of  speech,  it  sig- 
ni$es,  an  affected  love  of  religion,  for  which  a  person  looks 
upon  himself  with  great  complacency.    In  this  manner,  more  - 
over,  the  word  has  been  explained  by  ancient  commentators ; 
as  Augustin,  Ep.  59  ;*  Chrysostom,  who  explains  it  by  h\k- 
§5ia ;  Theophylact,  who  interprets  it,  C^rox^tvoix^vr}  guXa§sia  ^v  <r5j 
^fy\<tmc^ ;  Hilary  the  deacon,  who,  in  his  Scholia  On  the  epis- 
tles of  St.  Paul,  which  are  attributed  by  some  to  Ambrose^ 
understands  by  it,  a  pretence  of  religion.     Therefore  also, 
S-eXwy  £v  ra-rsivo^-^otfuvrj  xou  ^piqcfxsicL  in  the  place  before  us,  means, 
one  who  affects  humility  and  holiness ;  or,  who  aims  at  an  af- 
fected humility  and  holiness.  In  this  way  the  words  are  explain- 
edbyalearned  commentator  of  the  tenth  century,  Atto,  Bishop 
of  Vercelli,  in  his  Commentary,  h.  1.  His  words  are  these :  "  If 
this  could  be  expressed  by  a  Greek  word,  it  would  sound  still 
more  familiar  in  the  ordinary  Latin  usage.     For  he  who  af- 
fects to  be  rich,  is,  in  the  same  way,  commonly  called  thelo- 
dives,  and  he  who  affects  to  be  wise,  thelosapiens  ;  and  so  al- 
so in  other  cases  of  the  same  kind.    Therefore,  also,  in  this 
place,  thelohumilis,  i.  e.  one  who  affects  humility,  &c."t    And 
this  interpretation  is  exactly  applicable  to  the  Jews,  and  par- 
ticularly the  Pharisees,  and  to  all  who  w^ere  in  favor  of  the 
ceremonial  law  ;  of  whom  the  Apostle  is  speaking  in  this 
place.    Atto  perceived  this,  and  considers  the  passage  as  re- 
ferring to  the  Jewish  observances  ;  though  he,  too,  trifles  a 
great  deal  about  the  worship  of  angels. 


*  [August.  Op.  Vol.  I.  p.  389.  Ed.  Antw.  1700.— Tr.] 
t  [The  learned  author  has  committed  an  error  in  attributing  these 
words  to  Atto.    They  are  Augustin's  own  expressions,  in  the  very  pas- 
sage referred  to  just  before  by  Tittmann ;  who  must,  therefore,  have 
cited  this  place  of  the  Latin  Father  without  having  seen  it.— Tr.] 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  t)l3il 

Why,  however,  does  the  Apostle  add  twv  ayyg'Xwv  ?  To 
«hew  the  nature  of  this  ^pYi(fxsia  and  TaitsmcpfotfCvri,  and  to  in- 
timate their  greatness,  dignity,  and  excellence.  For  the  He- 
brews, when  they  wish  to  express  things  that  are  great  and 
remarkable,  make  use  of  names,  indicative  of  objects  of  this 
character ;  as,  for  example,  the  name  of  Gk>d,  which  is  very 
common  in  the  Scriptures,  as  may  be  seen  by  a  reference  to 
Glass.  They  employ,  however,  for  this  purpose,  the  name 
il^b^  also ;  for  instance,  when  they  wish  to  express  remark- 
able wisdom,  as  in  ii.  Sam.  xiv.  20  ;  o  xvpi6s  fxou  tfocpog  xa^wj 
<fo<pia  dyyiXou  «rou  ©sou,  cou  yvmm  <n:6LVTCc  ra  iv  t^  yvf,  i,  e,  thou  art 
exceedingly  mighty  in  wisdom  and  understanding ;  or,  when 
they  would  speak  of  distinguished  kindness  and  justice,  as  in 
II.  Sam.  XIV.  17.  XIX.  27,  o  xvpiog  jjiou  6  .SatfiXsus  ug  ayysXos  tou 
©5oy,  xtti  'ffoivicfov  to  dya^ov  iv  oqj^-aXftof?  tfou ;  or,  when  they  de- 
scribe great  good- will  in  any  one,  as  in  i.  Sam.  xxix.  9,  aiD 
o^HSk  ^kSds  •'Vi^a  nnx ;  where  the  Septuagint  has  omitted  the 
last  words,  and  rendered  the  phrase,  dya^og  cO  iv  Icp^akit^oTg  jjlou  ; 
or,  when  they  speak  of  very  great  majesty,  as  in  that  descrip- 
tion of  Stephen,  Acts,  Vl.  15,  sfdov  to  •rpotfojcr'ov  auTou  wCs/  *po- 
tfw^ov  dyyshov,  i.  e.  his  face  was  full  of  dignity  and  gravity ;  or, 
finally,  when  they  are  describing  a  great  multitude,  as  in  i. 
Cor.  XIII.  1,  where  nobody  surely  can  suppose,  that  the  lan- 
guages of  angels  are  meant ;  but  we  perceive  immediately, 
that  by  yXwaftfaig  twv  dv^-puifuv  xai  twv  dyysXojv,  are  intended 
all  languages  whatever.  From  all  this  it  may  be  perceived, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  S-piQtfxsia  twv  dyyiXuiv,  in  the  place  be- 
fore us ;  viz.  a  life  and  holiness,  which  resemble  the  life  and 
holiness  of  angels,  and  are  therefore  most  pure  and  perfect 
There  is  no  need  of  a  long  proof,  as  Wolfius  has  already  per- 
ceived this  to  be  the  meaning,  as  well  as  a  great  proportion  of 
the  very  learned  commentators  whom  he  cites.  But  what  t«« 
^eivocppotfyvT}  twv  dyyiXuv  means,  is  shewn  by  verse  23,  where 
it  is  connected  with  dopstSiti  (fu^a'ne;,  which  consists  in  severe 
treatment  of  the  body,  and  in  abstinence  from  such  food  as 
men  naturally  desire ;  and  is  opposed  to  rii^i,  viz.  tou  (fdfMroe, 
which  signifies,  attention  to  the  body,  both  in  general,  and  par-' 
ticularly  as  it  regards  the  nourishment  of  it.    This  signification 


3J0  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  aNOSTICS 

of  TifAi?,  as  also  of  the  verb  T»fjoaw,  is  not,  indeed,  very  common ; 
sometimes,  however,  it  occurs  in  Scripture,  as  in  Matt.  xv.  5, 
6u  fAii  Tiju-V;'?  ^ov  flfaTspa  auTou,  x.  r.  X.  where  T»(xa.w  is  to  be  un- 
derstood as  referring,  not  merely  to  the  paying  of  proper  re- 
spect, but  also  principally  to  liberality  and  munificence  in  the 
support  of  parents  ;  as  even  the  parallel  place,  Mark,  vii,  12, 
shews,  where,  instead  of  TifAaw,  the  verb  •roj^w  is  used,  which, 
as  Grotius  observes,  is  for  ayaS^oTroiiw.      Ti^xig  occurs,  in  the 
same  sense,  in  i.  Tim.  v.  3 ;  as  is  evident  from  the  verse 
which  follows,  where  the  Apostle  orders,  that  widows  who 
have  children  should  be  supported  by  them,  and  not  by  others. 
Particularly  clear,  however,  is  verse  17,  which  is  exactly  to 
the  point.   See  also  Ecclesiasticus,  xxxviii.  I.    The  Apostles, 
in  their  use  of  this  word,  imitated,  without  doubt,  the  usage 
of  the  Hebrews,  who  use  in  the  same  sense  the  verb  nD3  ;  as 
in  Numb.  xxiv.  11.     T»jxaw,  however,  is  to  be  found  with  this 
signification  in  the  Greek  writers,  who  also,  in  the  same  way, 
elegantly  employ  the  verb  iiratviu ;  as  in  Demosthenes,  de 
Corona,*  i^aivsn/  xp^^V  CTf^avw,  i.  e.  to  honor ;  or  rather,  to 
reward  with  a  golden  crown  ;  for  Demosthenes  had  a  little 
before  said,  in  reference  to  the  same  subject,  (fTscpavutfai  XP^^V 
tfrs^avcj.  Nor  is  it  unusual  with  Latin  writers  to  use  the  words 
honor  and  honoro  in  this  sense,  i.  e.  instead  of  pramium,  and 
beneficiis  officio.     Thus,  for  example,  in  Cicero,  pro  Quintio, 
4  ;  pro  Roscio  Amerino,  37,  and  47  ;  quod  virisfortibus  honos 
habitus  est,  laudo  ;  also  in  his  Epist.  L.  xvi.  9,  medico  honos 
haberetur,  i.  e.  it  was  proper  to  give  him  a  reward  ;  but  in 
what  way,  Cicero  could  not  tell.     In  the  same  sense,  also,  the 
word  occurs  in  Suetonius,  August.  45,  where  see  the  com- 
mentators ;  comp.  Krebs,  Comm.  ad  Dec.  Rom.  et  Athen. 
pro.  Jud.  p.  416,  and  Elsner,  on  this  place,  p.  416.   And  that 
this  is  the  sense  of  the  word  ti/xi)  in  the  passage  before  us, 
the  words  that  follow  clearly  shew ;  'Spk  •rX^io'fj.ov^v  t^j^  Ca^xo^, 
i  e.  to  the  satisfying  of  the  body ;  which  expressions  point 
out  the  nature  of  the  ^[tA  before  mentioned.    For  crXijtf/jiovii 


'  C  Denrosth.  et  Aesch,  Op.  Ed.  Lond*  1824,  Vol.  j.  p.  190.— Tr.  1 


'OF  TBJB         ^4 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMEiNT. 


signifies  that  satisfying  of  the  body,  which  is  produced  by 
food  ;  as  appears  from  the  usage  of  the  Septuagint,  which  al- 
most always  employs  the  word  to  express  this  idea,  and  ren- 
ders by  it  the  Hebrew  words  j;Dir,  and  jrgiv,  as  in  Exodus, 
XVI.  3,  V^jofjtsv  aprouff  sig  -rXijtffji-ovyiv.  The  Apostle,  therefore, 
refers  to  those,  who  abstained  on  certain  days  from  food  and 
drink,  through  their  scrupulous  reverence  for  the  ceremonial 
law ;  and  used  severe  bodily  mortification  ;  and  in  this  man- 
ner dealred  to  appear  more  holy  than  others,  to  imitate  the 
angels,  and  to  lead  an  angelic,  i.  e.  a  perfectly  humble  and 
pure  life.  It  is  evident  how  suitable  this  is  to  the  design  of 
the  Apostle  ;  since  he  is  speaking  of  those  who  were  too  par- 
tial to  the  Jewish  law,  which  required  a  severe  treatment  of 
the  body,  and  who,  on  this  account,  thought  themselves  more 
holy  and  religious  than  others.  Nor  is  the  usage  of  speech 
against  it :  for  abstinence  from  marriage  is  also  called  an 
angelic  life  ;  whence  the  term  iVayysXoi,  in  Luke,  xx.  36  ;  and 
therefore  abstinence  from  food  may  be  spoken  of  in  the  same 
w^ay,  and  that,  too,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  Hebrews, 
with  whom  any  one  who  eats  little,  or  mean  food,  is  said  not 
to  eat,  and  he  that  eats  so  as  to  satisfy  the  natural  wants  of 
the  body,  or  lives  on  delicate  and  dainty  food,  to  eat ;  as  ap- 
pears even  from  Matt.  xi.  18  s.  Tairsmcppoffuvri  twv  dyyi'huv 
consists,  therefore,  in  abstinence  from  food,  and  too  great 
mortification  of  the  body.  And  to  this  agree  the  words  a  ffcog 
hupaxsv  ^.a/3aT£uwv,  if  they  are  explained  thus ;  bestowing  in- 
cessant attention  upon  what  he  does  not  understand  ;  or,  he 
is  ignorant  of  that  which  he  is  doing ;  or,  as  Vatablus  inter- 
prets it,  "  agens,  quae  pro  certo  non  habet,  Deo  accepta  esse, 
doing  things  which  he  does  not  know  certainly  to  be  accepted 
by  God."  For  6^a,w  is  used  according  to  the  Hebrew  man- 
ner of  employing  the  verb  nx";,  viz.  to  understand,  as  Gen. 
XLii.  1.  1.  Kings,  X.  4.  and  also  in  numerous  places  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  verb  ^/x§areu'w  means  properly,  to  enter 
into  ;  and  also,  figuratively,  to  bestow  constant  labor  and  at- 
tention upon  any  thing,  as  was  the  case  with  those  who  were 
zealous  for  the  ceremonial  law.  Comp.  Krebs,  on  this  pas- 
'Eix>j  (putfioufASvo^  u'To   Tov  vohe:  <rrjs  (fapMS  aurou,  i.  e.   who 


•342  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

nevertheless  is  proudly  elated  in  the  midst  of  this  his  igno- 
rance, and  is  vainly  puffed  up  with  human  wisdom,  and  led 
away  by  empty  arrogance,  and  an  eager  desire  for  human 
applause,  as  were  the  Pharisees  and  Jewish  teachers.  Kara- 
^patosuw,  I  think  with  Casaubon  on  this  passage,  means,  to  cori' 
demn,  so  that  it  is  the  same  as  x/>»vw  in  verse  16,  which  is  used 
in  numerous  places  for  xarajc^ivw  ;  so  that  the  Apostle  repeats, 
in  this  place,  the  admonition  given  in  verse  16,  only  using 
another  word.  I  would  therefore  render  the  passage  thus : 
Let  no  man,  therefore,  I  say,  condemn  you,  or  charge  you  with 
doing  wrong.  The  word  xara§^a§£uw  is  taken  from  the  mode 
of  conducting  the  games.  B^a^suw  is  applied  to  the  master, 
or  president  of  the  games,  who  not  only  distributes  the  prizes, 
but  also  decides  who  is  worthy  to  receive  them.  Hence  it 
denotes,  in  the  next  place,  in  general,  to  preside  over,  to  rule, 
as  in  Ch.  in.  15.  But  xam,  in  composition,  sometimes  has  the 
force  of  giving  an  unfavorable  sense  to  a  word.  Kara^^aSsvw, 
therefore,  signifies,  to  judge  in  an  unfavorable  way,  or,  to 
condemn.  Hesychius,  accordingly,  interprets  the  word  by 
xaraxgjvw.  Krebs,  on  this  passage,  thus  explains  it ;  "  Let  no 
man  artfully  and  unjustly  circumvent  and  deceive  you." 
This,  also,  is  a  very  suitable  sense. 

The  Apostle  now  proceeds,  in  verse  19,  to  describe  a  per- 
son who  advocates,  and  submits  himself  to  the  Jewish  law : 
leaving,  says  he,  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ,  (viz.  while  he 
recommends  and  observes  what  Christ  has  forbidden,)  by 
whose  power  the  whole  of  this  spiritual  body  (he  speaks  of 
the  church  as  of  a  body,  of  which  Christians  are  the  mem- 
bers,) receives  nourishment  and  strength  through  all  its  parts 
and  joints,  so  that  it  gains  increase  pleasing  to  God.  The 
verb  sVip^o^'o/^w,  which  is  freely  used  by  the  Apostle,  I  have 
rendered,  "  to  receive  nourishment."  Xopriyew  and  iirixopriyiu, 
and  also  xoLroLxof^ysc^,  (for  those  persons  are  much  mistaken, 
who  think  there  is  any  particular  force  or  emphasis  in  the 
compound  verb)  are  used  by  the  Attic  writers  principally  ; 
and  signify,  to  furnish  the  expenses  necessary  for  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  games.  Hence,  the  person  who  is  at  the  expense 
of  the  games  is  called  x^f^Y^^^^  as  Emesti  has  shewn,  on  Xe- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  343 

uophont.  Memorabilia,  in.  4  ;  and  xmy^^^t  and  the  Latin  cho- 
ragiwn,  mean  the  apparatus  necessary  for  the  celebration 
of  the  games,  as,  for  instance,  garments,  statues,  &c.,  and, 
further,  any  apparatus  for  the  execution  of  any  design. 
Hence  y^fv\yi^  and  l^tdy^^rtiy^^  mean  simply  to  give,  to  furnish 
what  is  requisite  for  the  accomplishment  of  any  thing,  to  sup- 
ply with  the  necessary  articles  and  aid ;  and,  in  the  passive 
voice,  to  receive  these  same  things.  These  verbs  are  always 
used  in  these  senses  in  the  New  Testament ;  as,  ii.  Cor.  ix. 

i.  e.  he  who  supplies  seed  to  the  sower,  will  also  furnish  every 
kind  of  food ;  as  appears  from  the  parallel  place,  Isai.  lv. 
10,  from  which  these  words  are  taken  and  translated  ;  for 
the  Hebrew  there  is  \T}},  which  the  Septuagint  has  rendered  by 
^i^wfAi.     Accordingly,  x'^^'^7^^  ^^^  i-rj^^o^iiysw  are  used  one  for 
the  other,  as  in  the  passage  now  cited,  and  also  in  Gal.  in.  5, 
and  I.  Pet.  iv.  11 ;  and  likewise  for  5«5wfjii,  as  Luke  xi.  13. 
Hence  oupV)  r^g  girip^o^tiyiag,  Eph.  iv.  16,  is  the  joint,  by  which 
any  member  supplies  another  with  what  tends  to  its  increase. 
Let  us  here  add  the  sense  of  this  whole  passage  ;  as  it  is  ve- 
ry intimately  allied  to  that  before  us.     It  is  this :  By  whose 
power  this  whole  spiritual  body,  fitly  joined  and  compacted, 
through  that  junction  by  which  the  members  communicate  to 
each  other  spiritual  benefits,  (as  the  members  of  the  body 
impart  to  one  another  the  nervous  moisture,)  according  to  the 
measure  and  power  of  every  member,  increases,  so  as  to  ad- 
vance in  love.     Respecting  the  words  ^of  ^y^'w  and  i-jrip^o^Tiysw, 
Krebs   has  treated  extensively,   and,   as  usual,  with  great 
learning,  in  his  Commentar.  ad  Decreta  Rom.  pro  Jud.  p. 
22  s. 

In  the  verses  that  follow,  it  is  evident  at  once  that  the 
Apostle  is  repeating  the  admonition,  delivered  in  verse  8  s. ; 
and  giving  a  reason  for  the  statements  which  he  had  made, 
and  the  substance  of  which  has  been  already  mentioned. 
This  only  I  would  observe,  that  m  a'^r),  iirids  x.  t.  X.  in  verse 
21,  are  expressions  referring  to  the  same  subject,  and  are  to 
be  explamed  without  any  distinction  as  relating  to  food ;  ui 
which  sense  they  occur  in  Xenoph.  Cyropaed.  Ii.  i.  c.  3,  as 


344  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

Bos  has  observed  in  his  Exercitt.  Phil.  p.  207.  So  in  the 
Memorabiha,  L.  i.  c.  3,  (fkuv  a'K^sd&ai  does  not  mean,  to  touch 
food,  but  to  eat  it.  As  for  ysuo^Aai  in  particular,  that  it  signi- 
fies not  to  taste,  but  to  eat,  Bos  has  shewn  by  several  instan- 
ces, in  his  Animad.  ad  Vorstium,  which  are  added  to  the  Ob- 
servv.  Miscell.  p.  249,  where  he  establishes  this  sense  of  the 
word,  by  reference  to  several  authors,  principally  profane 
writers.  The  words  «  stfri  cravra  sfe  (p^ofotv  Tr\  d^opf^^csj,  in  verse 
22,  are  parenthetical,  and  are  to  be  understood  in  the  same 
way  as  the  words  of  Christ,  Matt.  xv.  17.  'EvraXfjoara  tw» 
av^pw-jrwy,  mean  the  same  as  tta^a^odig  twv  av^^wir'wv,  in  verse  8. 
A6705,  in  verse  23,  means,  appearance  ;  for  the  word  is  used 
in  this  sense  by  the  Greek  writers ;  whence  the  phrase  X670V 
sysiv  means,  to  have  or  to  shew  the  appearance  of  any  thing, 
as  Bos,  1.  c.  has  proved  by  several  examples. 

Having  thus  given  my  explanation,  and  established  it  by 
the  usage  of  language,  not  less  than  by  the  design  of  the 
Apostle,  and  the  whole  context  ;  I  think  that  I  have  asserted 
not  without  reason,  that,  through  the  whole  of  this  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians,  there  is  not  so  much  as  the  shadow  of  a  trace 
of  the  Gnostic  or  Oriental  philosophy,  but  that  every  thing 
is  to  be  understood  as  relating  to  the  ceremonial  law,  and  its 
zealous  supporters. 

I  have  occupied  considerable  time  in  the  elucidation 
of  this  passage  ;  and  must  now  hasten  to  the  considera- 
tion of  others.  It  is  thought  by  some  learned  writers, 
that  there  are  nowhere  more  clear  and  evident  traces  of 
the  Gnostics  than  in  1.  Tim.  vi,  and  particularly  in  the 
concluding  verses  of  the  chapter,  where  they  think  that 
the  Apostle  points  them  out  by  name  ;  being  no  doubt  de- 
ceived by  the  sound  of  the  word  yvwc*^.  Let  us  see,  how- 
ever, whether  an  interpretation  cannot  be  given,  which  may 
suit  both  the  usage  of  language,  and  the  design  and  views  of 
the  Apostle,  without  making  the  place  refer  to  the  Gnostics, 
or  other  philosophers  of  that  kind.  First  let  us  inquii-e 
into  the  meaning  of  the  word  /vwC/^,  which  I  think  signi- 
fies here  the  Imowledge  of  divine  things,  or  religion  ;  which 
is  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  other  and  most  ancient  use  of 


IN  THE  N£W  TESTAMENT.  345 

the  word.  The  Septuagint  sometimes  renders  by  yvwtf<^  the 
Hebrew  word  na^a,  which  properly  signifies,  an  accurate  and 
distinct  knowledge  of  any  thing  ;  from  the  word  |n,  which, 
like  the  Arabic  uLj  ,  means  properly,  to  cut  ;  and  hence,  to 
consider  any  thing  part  by  part,  i.  e.  more  accurately,  as 
ScHULTENs  has  shewn,  on  Prov.  i.  2.  But  nra  signifies  fur- 
ther, the  knowledge  of  divine  things,  or  also  divine  inspira- 
tion, as  Dan.  ix.  22.  For  it  answers  evidently  to  the  Arabic 
i'-jC.X^i,  which  occurs  very  frequently  in  the  Koran,  and 
is  the  ordinary  word  for  expressing  those  divine  inspirations, 
with  which  Mohammed  professed  to  be  favored.  For  the 
most  part,  however,  and  very  frequently,  the  Septuagint  trans- 
lates by  yvCxiig  the  word  riri,  which  signifies  any  kind  of  know- 
ledge whatever  ;  but,  especially,  the  knowledge,  and  also  the 
system  itself,  of  things  relating  to  religion,  as  Mai.  n.  7,  where 
the  prophet  says,  nn-nn^'".  |n3  'naif',  i.  e.  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
ministers  of  God,  to  watch  over  doctrine  and  its  purity  ;  care- 
fully to  keep  the  divine  doctrine  ;  or  rather,  so  to  deliver  it, 
that  its  purity  may  receive  no  injury.  The  Septuagint  has 
rendered  the  passage  word  for  word  ;  x^iX^i  le^sw^  (pi^Xafsrat 
/vojfl'jv.  And  the  word  ^vwCig  has  this  sense  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament also,  so  that  it  signifies  simply,  knowledge  concerning 
God  ;  as  Rom.  i.  19,  where,  indeed,  the  words  are  yvw^rov  t«u 
GsoiJ,  but  this  is  for  yvwCi^  <rou  ©$ov,  as  Ch.  n.  4,  x^tjCtov  for  x^riC- 
ToVyjs  ;  and  in  Chap.  xi.  33,  yvwCi^  is  attributed  to  God  him- 
self, for  which  reason  he  is  called,  in  i.  Sam.  u.  3,  niiri  Sk,  ®shc; 
yvwtfswv.  In  this  sense  the  word  occurs  in  numerous  places  of 
Clemens  Alexandrinus  ;  as  at  the  beginning  of  Book  V,  of 
the  Stromata,  where  he  speaks  of  yvwo'jj  uiou  xou  "rrar^o?,  which 
he  says  ought  to  precede  -rirfTi^.  Thence,  also,  /vwiTi?  signifies 
every  kind  of  knowledge  of  divine  things ;  as  in  that  diflicult 
passage,  i.  Cor.  vin.  1,  though  even  this  place,  also,  Hammond 
and  Brucker  have  made  to  refer  to  the  Gnostics,  because  they 
found  the  word  yvw^jg  there  !  Those  who  entertain  this  opi- 
nion, however,  do  not  understand  the  real  meaning  of  the 
place.  It  is  this  :  "  The  generality  of  us  (-ravrfg,  on  account 
of  verse  7,)  have  a  knowledge  of  such  things  (he  particular- 
ly refers  to  knowledge  concerning  the  nothmgn^gs  of  idol?, 

44 


346  KCf  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTrCo 

as  the  context  very  clearly  shews,),  without  doubt,  (finalfy  we 
are  in  part  not  wanting  in  knowledge ;  for  a  parenthesis  be- 
gins from  these  words,  which  is  continued  to  the  end  of  verse 
3,  as  Schmidt  and  Bos  have  correctly  observed)  but  this  know- 
ledge by  itself  usually  leads  to  pride  ;  but  it  will  profit,  if  love 
be  added  to  it,  which  is  the  most  excellent  teacher  of  our  du- 
ties." So  Ch.  xui.  2.  rvwrf/f,  however,  signifies  besides  this, 
religion  itself,  as  Phil.  m.  8,  which  is  a  very  clear  passage.  In 
the  same  way  yivwcxw  is  used,  John,  xvn.  3,  where,  without 
doubt,  reference  is  made  to  Isaiah,  lui.  1 1 ,  where  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  is  said  to  bring  many  to  the  faith  ^P^vi^,  i.  e.  by 
his  gospel  and  doctrine.  This  use  of  y^ddig,  in  the  sense  of 
religion  and  divine  doctrine,  is  also  found  in  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  ;  as  in  Strom.  L.  vi.  p.  645,  where  he  speaks  of  ymiig 
ira^OL  Tou  uiou  Tou  ^goi;  ifuPaSo^sTda  xai  aitoxa'kv(p'^sT(fa,  "  the  know- 
ledge delivered  and  revealed  by  the  Son  of  God,"  and  also 
in  numerous  other  places  ;  and  he  constantly  distinguishes  by 
the  term  yvwCTjxo^,  one  who  has  embraced  the  religion  of  Je- 
sus Christ.  From  all  this,  therefore,  it  may  be  perceived, 
that  yvwrfjj,  in  the  place  before  us,  may,  according  to  the  usage 
of  language,  have  the  meaning  which  I  have  assigned  to  it ; 
and  that  it  has,  is,  in  the  next  place,  proved  by  the  con- 
text. This  yvwtfjg  is  called  -^suduw^Log,  i.  e.  that  system  of  di- 
vine things,  which  is  not  worthy  of  this  name,  and,  on  ac- 
count of  its  corruptions,  can  no  more  be  spoken  of  in 
this  way ;  in  a  word,  false  religion.  Ygudwvu/xo?  yvwtfj^,  there- 
fore, is  precisely  the  same  as  9»Xo(j'ocpja,  in  tlie  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians  ;  viz.  the  Jewish  doctrine,  depraved  and  corrupted 
in  various  ways,  which  is,  therefore,  no  more  worthy  of  the 
name  of  divine  doctrine.  The  word  avTt^s(feig  either  means  ques- 
tions and  discussions  respecting  this  doctrine,  or  is  redundant. 
Now  the  Apostle  calls  this  same  doctrine  cag  ^s^rjXous  xsvocpu- 
viag.  The  word  xsvoqjwv/a  is  from  xsvog,  which  is  used  in  the  New 
Testament  according  to  the  Hebrew  manner,  and  answers 
to  p"^,  vain,  void ;  as  xsvm  answers  to  pOI?  which  signifies,  ei- 
ther to  take  away  altogether,  or  to  diminish,  or  to  abase  one's 
self,  to  lower  one's  self,  or  to  makes  one's  strength  less  than 
the  natural  ability ;  which  the  Greek  writers  elegantly  ex- 
press by  frau«e'uoaa»,    and  the  Latin  by  the  words,  '  dispenso 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  ^^4"? 

Vii^s  meas/  We  find  xsvoj,  in  this  sense,  in  Luke,  i.  53, 
^XouTouvraf  s^afkrsiKs  xsvovg,  he  makes  the  rich  poor,  he  de- 
presses them,  so  that  they  have  nothing  of  which  they  can 
boast ;  and  xsvow,  in  i.  Cor.  i.  17,  i'va  it^rj  xsvy^Jj  6  tfraupog  cou 
XpKfTovy  i.  e.  least  that  power,  which  is  pecuUar  to  the  gospel, 
and  which  it  has  over  the  minds  of  men,  although  no  art  be 
used,  should  be  taken  from  the  gospel,  and  ascribed  to  hu- 
man artifice.  Hence  we  may  perceive  the  folly  of  those, 
who,  in  Phil.  ii.  7,  and  in  the  condition  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  while  on  the  earth,  termed  in  scholastic  language  his 
state  of  humiliation,  imagine  a  certain  emptying,  and  philoso- 
phize about  it  to  a  wonderful  degree.  Still  better  known  is 
the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  p^,  as  in  that  well-known 
declaration,  Kin  p;^  V^'^S  Deut.  xxxii.  47,  which  is^  trans- 
lated by  the  Septuagint  ou^'  Xoyo?  xsvos  ourog,  i.  e.  this  promise 
shall  not  be  void,  it  shall  have  its  efficacy,  or  fulfilment.  The 
word  xsvo(pcjvi'a?,  therefore,  means  vain  discussions,  having  no 
utility,  no  efficacy  for  the  production  of  piety,  and  therefore 
without  effect ;  and  is  the  same  as  asmg  Xoyoij,  in  Eph.  v.  6. 
Hence  Hesychius  interprets  xsvo(p6jvia?  by  fxaraioXoyia^.  |But 
the  Apostle  calls  them  ^sj3rfKovg,  i.  e.  profane  ^nd  impious, 
on  account  of  their  remarkable  wickedness,  and  contempt  of 
the  true  and  purer  doctrine ;  such  as  characterized  the  ques- 
tions respecting  Jewish  rites,  keeping  the  ceremonial  law,  and 
other  things  of  the  same  kind.  And  this  -^^sMwikog  yvwtfj^  the 
Apostle  opposes  to  ^apaxara^^jxTj  or  -jrapa&Tixy].  For  it  makes  no 
difference,  whether  we  read  flra^axaraa^x/j  or  flra^aS>jx*j,  since 
both  have  the  same  meaning,  and  both  are  used  in  a  good 
sense.  In  this  place  is  meant,  without  doubt,  the  doctrine  of 
the  gospel ;  as  is  shewn  by  the  parallel  places,  Ch.  i.  18, 
where  the  verb  -ra^arja-sjuoai  is  joined  with  cra^a/ysXia ;  and  lu 
Tim.  I.  14. 

Thus  much  respecting  the  words ;  let  us  proceed  to  the 
subject-matter,  the  context,  and  parallel  passages.  And, 
first,  I  shall  assume  a  point  which  is  freely  conceded  by 
all  commentators,  that  the  Apostle  is  evidently,  in  these 
words  of  which  I  have  been  speaking,  repeating  the  admoni- 
tion given  before  in  Ch.  i.  4,  comp.  with  verse  18 :  for  the 


MS  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICf 

discourse  begun  in  verse  3,  he  continues  in  verse  18 ;  and 
verses  4 — 17,  are  parenthetical,  as  Heumann,  and  Michaelis, 
in  loc.  have  observed  after  Melancthon,  Oper.  Tom.  iv.  p, 
380.  Perhaps,  also,  the  opinion  of  Heumann  and  Grotius  isl 
not  entirely  unworthy  of  attention,  that  verses  20  and  21,  oi 
Ch.  vr,  were  added  by  the  Apostle,  with  his  own  hand,  by 
way  of  appendix  to  the  epistle  after  it  was  finished,  in  order 
to  press  the  more  thoroughly  this  admonition  upon  Timothy* 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  words  ^s^rfkovg  xsvocptAiviag  xai 
dvri^i<t€ts  *rrjg  ^J^eu^wvu^ou  yvwCgw^,  mean  the  same  as  (A^a-oig  xai 
ysvsakoyims  difs^oivrois  in  the  other  passage,  or,  as  they  are  call- 
ed, ch.  IV.  7,  fSs^rjkovg  TLOA  ygauSsig  iJ^v&ovg.  By  if^v6oi,  however* 
are  not  meant,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  fables,  this  not  being 
the  pecuHar  and  only  signification  of  the  word,  with  Greek 
writers  :  but  the  Apostle  means,  discourses,  discussions,  narra^ 
tions  ;  hence  f^u'aoig  (rsCo^Kfjutsvoi^,  ii.  Pet.  i.  16,  means,  cunning 
and  artificial  accounts;  or  discussions,  skilfully  and  craftily 
devised,  calculated  to  deceive  the  minds  of  men,  (Diodor. 
SicuL.  I.  93,  calls  them  ii^vdovg  -Tre^XarffAsvou?)  which  the 
Apostle  says  that  he  had  not  used,  ( IfaxoXouS^jrfavTe^ )  in 
shewing  to  Christians  the  very  present,  i.  e.  efficacious 
majesty  of  Jesus  Christ  ;  but  that  he  had  only  delivered,  in 
a  simple  narrative,  what  he  had  perceived  with  his  own  eyes 
and  ears.  U^o&ixsiv  f^us-oig  signifies  :  to  yield  assent  to  refined 
discussions ;  to  dehght  in  them,  and  to  be  absorbed  in  the 
study  of  them  :  for  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  cr'^oo'- 
gj^gjv  Tivi,  as  Krebs,  in  his  Obs.  in  N.  T.  e  Josepho,  on  Acts, 
Viu.  6,  p.  203  s.,  has  proved  from  several  passages  of  Jose- 
phus.  The  meaning,  therefore,  of  m-ti  'rt^odix^w  ^iAj^oig  is  :  not 
to  care  about  these  things,  to  shun  them,  to  reject  them* 
Now  it  is  evident  that  "jr^ocs'^^eiv  [hu^oig  xai  ysveoLkoyiat^  dcrs^avro/^, 
is  that  same  iia.raio'ko'yta,  to  which  the  Apostle  says,  in  verse 
6,  that  some  had  turned  aside.  These,  however,  he  calls,  in 
the  following  verse,  voiioSidatfxakoi  ;  and  by  this  vofAoj  he  means 
the  Jewish  law,  as  appears  from  verse  8  s.,  where  the  Apos- 
tle speaks  of  this,  and  especially  of  its  threatenings  against 
violators  of  the  law.  See  Grotius,  on  this  place,  and  Heu- 
-HiANN.    Hence  the  teachers  of  the  Jews  are  called  fj^aratoXSyeu 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  'M^ 

in  Tit.  I.  10. — In  such  a  train  of  thought  as  this,  how  can  it 
be  supposed  that  there  is  any  reference  to  the  Gnostic  philo- 
sophers ;  and  what  other  persons  can  possibly  be  intended, 
but  Jews,  and  teachers  of  the  law,  and  those  who  were  stre* 
nuous  advocates  of  the  Jewish  religion  ?  A  comparison, 
moreover,  of  the  words  themselves  by  which  the  Apostle 
describes  that  class  of  men,  with  other  forms  of  expression 
in  relation  to  the  same  subject^  will  establish  the  correctness 
of  my  interpretation.  For,  in  other  places,  he  speaks  of  the 
Jews  exactly  in  the  same  way,  and  almost  in  the  same  words, 
as  in  verse  7,  where  he  says  ;  it^-n  voowvres  fx^TS  cl  Xsyoutf*,  jw-^ts 
'fs^i  rivuv  ^la^s^aiouvrai,  i.  e.  even  they  themselves  do  not  suffi- 
ciently understand  the  things  which  they  teach,  nor  can  they 
explain  and  clearly  prove  them  to  others.  Now  do  not  these 
words  agree  entirely  with  what  the  Apostle  says  of  the  Jews, 
in  Rom.  X.  2  ;  ^5jXov  ©sou  s^outfiv,  aXX'  ou  xar'  ^flrlyvwfl'jv,  i.  e. 
they  are,  indeed,  zealous  in  defence  of  the  religion  and  law 
of  God ;  but  their  zeal  is  not  enlightened,  nor  united  with  a 
just  knowledge  of  God  and  of  religion.  And  in  what  res- 
pect do  they  differ  from  those  words  in  Col.  n.  18,  a  ixij  kd^ 
jpaxsv  i^^ariuuv  ?  MosHEiM  himself,  accordingly,  understands 
this  passage  as  referring  to  the  Jewish  teachers. — Not  less  im- 
portant, moreover,  is  the  consideration,  that,  of  this  class  of 
men,  Hymenaeus  and  Alexander  are  mentioned  by  name,  in 
Ch.  I.  20 ;  whom  nobody  but  Mosheim  can  readily  think 
were  Gnostics,  that  bears  in  mind  the  fact,  that  these  men 
were  delivered  to  Satan,  or,  at  any  rate,  were  expelled  from 
the  Christian  church  by  the  Apostle,  that  they  might  return 
to  a  better  mind.  For  whether  we  understand  these  words 
as  referring  to  excommunication  ;  which  was  performed,  by 
Christians  separating  such  persons  from  their  society,  and  not 
permitting  them  to  enter  into  the  public  assemblies,  that  at 
length,  perhaps,  being  driven  into  the  company  of  the  hea- 
then, they  might  repent ;  or  whether  we  adopt  another,  and 
more  probable  interpretation,  that  Hymenaeus  and  Alexan*. 
der  were  delivered  over  to  the  power  of  Satan,  in  order  that, 
through  the  afflicting  of  their  bodies,  they  might  return  to  a 
sound  mind,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  incestuous  person. 


i^50  NO  TRACES  or  THE  GNOSTICS 

I.  Cor.   V.  5 ;  either  way  it  is  clear,  that  these  men  Were 
members  of  the  church.     For  the  Apostle  expressly  asserts, 
I.  Cor.  V.  12  s.  that  it  does  not  belong  to  themselves  and  to 
Christians  to  judge  those,   who  are  out  of  the  pale  of  the 
church ;  that  it  is  enough  to  judge  Christians  ;  that  others  are 
judged  by  God.  Unless,  therefore,  Hymenaeus  and  Alexander 
had  been  Christians,  the  Apostle  could  not  have  expelled  them 
from  the  Christian  church,  nor  delivered  their  bodies  to  be  af- 
flicted by  the  devil. — Nor  ought  it  to  be  forgotten,  that  the 
words  Tous  €£§»3>oug  xtti  y^aw^sis  jxu^ou?,  in  Ch.  iv.  7.  are  explain- 
ed by  the  Apostle  himself,  in  the  next  verse,  as  referring  to  tfw- 
jaarix^    yi^ftvaCia  ;    and   this,  he  says  in  verse  3  s.,  consisted 
in  abstinence  from  meats,  and  drinks,  and  other  things  of 
that  nature.     Now  to  what  can  these  things  be  more  suitably 
referred,  or  to  what  ought  they  rather  to  be  applied,  than  to 
the  Jewish  ceremonial  law,  which,  it  is  well  known,  persons 
of  that  period,  and  even  some  Christians,  so  strongly  urged, 
and  recommended  both  by  words  and  example  ?     Finally,  it 
is  no  unimportant  consideration,  and  perhaps  deserves  the 
greatest  weight  of  all,  that  the  Apostle  calls  those  very  M-i^^oj 
by  the  name  of 'lou^ajxoi,  in  Tit.  i.  14,  and  uses  the  same  verb 
cr^otfg'xw,  which  he  has  in  i.  Tim.  i.  4 ;  and  in  Tit.  in.  9,  speaks 
of  fxw^aj  ^vjTTjtfsj?,  which  answers  plainly  to  §e§ri^oi  jxu^oi.     For 
the  word  ^■nrr}(fsts  signifies  questions,  refined  discussions,  and, 
principally,  allegorical  reasonings.     Hence  <fv^r]rriTri£  means  a 
person,  who  can  argue  ingeniously  respecting  every  kind  of 
doctrine  ;  and  du^riTriTriS  <roi>ulQvog  rouTou,  i.  Cor.  i.  20,  signifies 
a  man  accomplished  in  the  refinement  of  human  wisdom. 
The  Hebrews  call  such  a  person  If^?,  whence  i^Jl^,  mean- 
ing the  refined,  allegorical,  or  mystical  sense.     Hence  also 
(fv^-y}Tri(fis,  in  the  sense  of  which  I  have  spoken ;  for  example,  in 
Acts  XV.  2,  where  it  is  connected  with  the  word  tfTocCsw?,  which 
means  altercation,  as  is  shewn  by  the  usage  of  the  Septuagint, 
which  sometimes  renders  by  this  word  the  Hebrew  ti.    Not 
only,  however,  does  the  Apostle,  in  the  passage  referred  to, 
speak  of  (xw^ag  JiqtVsij,   but  also  of  yevsaXoy/ag,*  xai  sgsts,  xa* 

*  TtiitAheyietf.     Semler  adds,  'A/awr,  in  Comment.  Hist,  de  ant. 
Christ,  statu,  p.  30-    But  what  grounds  has  he  for  this  ? 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  351 

fiw»xaf  vo(/>ixoLS ;  in  which  it  is  very  evident,  that  reference  is 
made  to  the  contentions  of  the  Jews  respecting  the  ceremonial 
law,  and  religious  subjects  in  general.  Some,  however,  are 
of  opinion,  that  the  passage  relates  particularly  to  their  dis- 
putes on  the  genealogies  of  the  Chief-priests  and  priests,  to 
which,  according  to  Josephus,  they  paid  very  scrupulous  at- 
tention ;  the  Jews  being  universally  of  opinion,  that  the  immor- 
tality, and  everlasting  honor  of  their  name,  depended  on  the 
genealogical  tables.  On  this  subject,  see  Michael  is,  Com- 
mentationes,  presented  to  the  Royal  Soc.  of  Gotting.  during 
the  years  1763  ss ;  p.  2  s. — Now  either  comparison  of  dif- 
ferent passages,  and  the  reasoning  founded  upon  it,  are  no- 
where of  any  weight  in  interpretations  of  this  kind,  or  it  is 
evident  from  what  has  been  adduced,  that,  through  the  whole 
of  the  passage  under  discussion,  there  is  no  trace  of  the  Gnos- 
tic, or  of  any  other  philosophy ;  but  that  its  meaning  is  that 
which  I  have  assigned  to  it.  And  here  1  cannot  but  notice 
the  caution  of  those  two  distinguished  commentators,  Chrv- 
sosTOM  and  Camerarius  ;  both  of  whom  considered  this 
place  as  referring  to  the  Gnostics,  but  only  on  conjecture. 
Chrysostom,  Op.  Tom.  vi.  p.  531.  Ed.  Par.  1636,  says,  v  Tax^- 

rovTo  (pYitfi,  SioTi  rtvss  lauToOg  sxaXouv  tots  TvudTixovs,  us  'rrXsov  ri  9"wv 
aXXwv  Mtss,  "  or  perhaps  he  says  this,  because  certain  per- 
sons, at  that  period,  called  themselves  Gnostics,  as  knowing 
somewhat  more  than  others."  And  it  is  evident  that  he  add- 
ed this  only  in  the  way  of  conjecture,  from  the  fact  that  he 
explains  the  whole  of  this  Epistle  with  reference  to  the  Jews. 
Thus,  for  example,  he  expressly  says  that  hs^odiSadxa'ksTv,  Ch. 
1.  3,  refers  to  "  the  Jews,  who  wished  to  bring  believers  again 
into  subjection  to  the  law ;"  (IovSoliovs,  ^ouXoAts'^ou^  •n'aXiv  i<Ki 
Tov  vo>ov  sXxsjv  Tovg  nticfTovs)  and  he  adds,  that  the  Apostle  re- 
proves them  for  this  in  almost  all  his  epistles.  Moreover,  he 
thus  explains  jxuSoig  xa<  ysvsoKoy'mSj  in  the  next  verse ;  fjiuSou^ 
ou  Tov  vo'fxov  9y)(j'/v,  acfaye,  aXXa  Tag  cra^a'ToiV^'^j  '<«'  ''■«'  flra^a^a- 
^a^jxara,  xa<  ra  cra^atfrjfxa  5oy|xara.  'Eixoj  ya^  ^ovs  i^  lou^aiwv 
&v  ToTg  dvovrjTois  to,  'ffOMra  Xoyov  dvaXiVxsiv,  ifa'ffirovs  xai  cr^ocraTr- 
flroug  d^i^^ovvTCLg,  i'va  5^d£v  ii^ifsi^iag  leoXKris  xctl  \(fTopias  do^uv 
sywtfjv.     "  He  does  not  refer  to  the  law ;  far  from  it ;  but  to 


Sbil  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTlCb 

fictions,  and  false  doctrines.  For  it  is  known,  that  some  of  the 
Jews  employ  their  whole  discourse  on  useless  topics,  reckon- 
ing up  their  pedigree,  that  they  may  acquire  a  reputation  for 
great  learning  and  investigation."  In  the  same  way,  he  inter- 
prets ^sQrfKovs  xa/  y^aw^sjg  (jw;3-ou?,  ch.  iv.  7,  by  tols  lou5aiwv  flraga- 
fr7]p7](fsis, — So  also  Camerarius,  on  this  passage,  observes,  "  I 
suspect,  also,  that  the  Apostle  here  refers  to  a  certain  sect, 
called  Gnostics,  (twv  rvw(j'<nxwv  >caXoufx^vwv)  who  are  supposed 
to  have  sprung  from  the  Nicolaitans,  and  who  shewed  a  won- 
derful acquaintance  with  abstruse  subjects."  Many  veiy 
learned  commentators  have  been  equally  cautious,  in  express- 
ing their  opinions  on  this  subject ;  among  whom  I  think  Gro- 
Tius  also  may  in  a  certain  sense  be  classed,  who  speaks,  I  per- 
ceive, rather  in  a  hesitating  manner  at  Matt.  xxiv.  11.  He 
there  observes  ;  "  And  this  (the  Gnostic  philosophy,  of  which 
he  is  speaking,)  is,  if  1  am  not  mistaken,  that  •4^svduvviios  yvwtfj^, 
mentioned  by  St.  Paul  in  his  epistle  to  Timothy."  At  this 
place  of  the  Apostle,  however,  he  speaks  with  greater  con- 
fidence, saying ;  "  you  perceive  here,  how  ancient  is  the  name 
of  Gnostics,  which  these  philosophers,  mingling  themselves 
with  the  Christian  assemblies,  assumed  ;  despising  others  as 
ignorant  persons  :"  though,  even  at  the  former  place  also,  he 
pronounces  his  opinion  with  some  degree  of  confidence,  in  the 
remarks  which  he  afterwards  makes. 

l^et  us  now  proceed  to  the  writings  of  St.  John,  and  par- 
ticularly his  Gospel,  and  First  Epistle  ;  in  which  some  very 
learned  men  think  that  there  are  such  evident  traces  of  the 
Gnostic  philosophy,  that  no  doubt  can  remain  upon  the  sub- 
ject. With  respect  to  the  former,  they  assert,  with  great 
unanimity,  that  the  whole  of  it  was  written  in  opposition  to 
this  class  of  men  ;  both  because  it  is  too  evident,  that  the  de- 
sign of  the  sacred  Evangelist  was  to  defend  the  divinity  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  against  the  objections  of  enemies,  and 
because  he  makes  use  of  those  very  words,  which  the  Gnos- 
tics employed  in  a  different  sense.  Among  these  they  class 
the  terms  Xo^oj,  ^6j>),  cpus,  yuovoysvrig,  (fwr^i^j  and  the  phrases,  '^rfog 
Tov  0SOV  shoLi,  irXii^-rig  X'ip'roz  xcd  akyi^s.'ia.g,  and  others.  Objections, 
however,  may  be  urged  against  both  these  proofs. 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  353 

As  Ibr  the  first  argument,  that  it  was  the  design  of  St,  John 
to  contend  against  the  opponents  of  Christ*s  divinity,  i.  e.  the 
Gnostics,  I  have  not  as  yet  been  persuaded  into  this  opinion 
by  what  some  learned  writers  have  advanced  in  support  of 
it,  with  more  ingenuity  and  plausibihty  than  correctness.  For, 
first,  the  whole  tenor  of  the  discourse,  and  even  the  first 
fourteen  verses,  which  are  particularly  thought  to  refer  to 
this  subject,  have  no  appearance  of  any  refutation,  or  ar- 
gument ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  plain  that  it  is  a  doctrinal 
passage,  in  which  the  inspired  writer,  according  to  a  method 
pursued  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  makes  some  explanato- 
ry observations  in  regard  to  our  Saviour,  his  natures,  and  the 
union  of  them,  by  way  of  preface  and  introduction  to  the 
subsequent  history  of  Christ ;  and  clearly  and  minutely  shews 
the  design  of  this  great  mystery,  at  that  time  altogether  re- 
jected by  the  Jews  ;  which  the  Christians  might  make  use  of 
as  well  for  convincing  the  Jews,  as  for  strengthening  their 
own  belief,  by  a  certain  and  clear  examination  of  the  whole 
nature  and  truth  of  the  matter.  And  this  was  the  design  and 
plan  of  the  other  writers  also  of  the  gospel  history,  though 
of  none  so  plainly  as  of  St.  John  ;  and  yet  no  other,  except 
him,  has  ever  been  thought  to  have  combated  the  errors  of 
the  Gnostics.  There  is  no  reason,  therefore,  for  the  assertion 
of  some  learned  men,  and,  among  these,  of  Schroeckh,  Hist. 
Eccl.  Tom.  n.  p.  312,  that  this  doctrinal  discourse  of  St.  John 
is  altogether  out  of  place  in  a  historical  book,  unless  the  in- 
tention of  it  is  to  refute  some  doctrinal  error.  For  granting, 
that  St.  John  departs  somewhat  from  the  character  of  a  his- 
torian, and  undertakes  the  office  of  a  teacher  ;  is  he  necessa- 
rily, on  that  account,  contending  against  the  Gnostics,  or  other 
heretics  of  that  kind  ?  On  the  contrary,  as  I  have  already 
said,  he  added  these  remarks  for  the  benefit  of  the  Jews,  and 
of  Christians,  who  were  not  sufficiently  confirmed  in  the  faith. 
And  what  else  is  it  but  to  fulfil  the  office  of  a  historical  writ- 
er, to  relate,  that  the  Son  of  God  existed  before  the  begin- 
ning of  the  world,  that  he  formed  this  whole  universe,  and, 
having  assumed  a  human  nature,  proved  himself,  on  the  earth, 
by  various  circumstances  and  actions,  to  be  the  tnie  God  ? 

45 


354  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  for  this  very  reason,  that  8t.  John  pur* 
sues  a  more  extensive  and  clearer  plan,  than  the  other  writers 
of  the  gospel  history,  it  is  evident,  that  his  intention  was  to 
put  Christians  upon  their  guard  against  the  errors  of  the  Gnos- 
tics.    Be  it  so.     But  why  does  he  speak  so  much  about  the 
Xoyog,  and  directly  explain  who  he  is  ?     Why  does  he  not  dis- 
course rather  about  Demiurge,  whom  these  men  maintained 
to  be  the  author  of  all  things,  but  inferior  to  the  supreme 
God,  nay,  wicked  and  impotent  in  nature  ;  and  shew  that  this 
same  ^^jjxiou^yo?,  i.  e.  creator  of  the  world,  is  the  supreme  God 
himself ;  and  that  he  has  a  Son,  who  partakes  of  divinity  in 
the  same  measure  with  the  Father,  and  who  may  in  a  harm- 
less sense  be  termed  Xoyo?  ;  and  why  does  he  speak  of  this 
X670?  in  such  a  manner,  as  if  Christians  had  never  known  any 
thing  about  any  other  ?     Why  is  he  silent  about  Aeons,*  re- 
specting whom  the  Gnostics  philosophized  in  as  trifling  a  man- 
ner, as  they  did  with  regard  to  the  Xoyog  ;  and  why  does  he 
not  prove  to  these  philosophers,  that  their  opinion  in  regard 
to  other  natures,  viz.  Aeons,  between  the  supreme  God  and 
Demiurge,  is  absurd  and  impious,  and  is  grounded  upon  a  false 
opinion  respecting  the  origin  of  evil  ?     I  like  better,  there- 
fore, the  opinion  of  those,  who  think  that  it  was  St.  John's 
intention,  in  this  work,  to  write  a  sort  of  compendium,  (not 
because  there  is  an  ancient  tradition  to  this  effect,  for  I  can- 
not hesitate  to  pronounce  this,  with  Semler,  in  the  Pref.  to 
his  Paraph,  of  St.  John's  gospel,  a  mere  fable  ;  but  because 
any  person,  who  reads  the  Gospel,  and  other  writings  of  St. 
John,  may  easily  perceive  this  for  himself,)  and  to  explain  the 
Christian  doctrine  somewhat  more  minutely  and  fully  ;  (which 


*  Whoever  wishes  to  know  something  of  the  Aeons  of  the  Gnostics, 
may  consult  Beausobre,  Hist.  Crit.  de  Manich^e  et  Manicheisme,  Tom. 
n.  Lib.  V.  c.  2.  p.  574 ;  Mosheim,  Instit.  H.  E.  maj.  p.  143  s. ;  and 
Brucker,  Hist.  Crit.  Phil.  Tom.  h.  p.  647,  where  he  thus  observes: 
"  They  are  substantial  virtues,  which,  having  come  out  and  emanating 
from  God,  have,  indeed,  a  divine  nature  and  essence,  yet  different  from 
its  source  by  a  certain  mode  and  peculiar  way  of  existence  of  its  own; 
intellectual  and  immortal,  and  having  no  reference  to  that  time  which 
is  the  continuing  result  of  mutation. " 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  355 

IS  the  opinion  of  Semler,  Hist.  dog.  fidei,  prefixed  to  Baum- 
garten^s  Polem.  Theol.  T.  i.  p.  61.)  and,  as  there  were  not 
only  many  Jews,  who  impugned  the  divine  nature  of  Clirist, 
or,  at  least,  had  doubtful  and  various  sentiments  in  regard  to 
it,  but  also  many  Christians,  who  did  not  understand  it  with 
sufficient  certainty,  that  he  wished  to  prove  it  by  arguments, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  to  explain  the  subject  of  his  human  na- 
ture, and  of  the  union  of  the  former  with  it ;  so  that  the  whole 
doctrine  in  regard  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  might  be  better 
understood,  and  be  more  clearly  evident  to  all,  and  thus  Chris- 
tians might  have,  in  this  work,  a  kind  of  spiritual  gift  (x^^o"- 
fAa  flrvsufAttTixov).  And  this  opinion,  no  less  than  that  which  sup- 
poses St.  John  to  have  written  against  the  Gnostic  heresies, 
is  supported  by  the  authority  of  antiquity ;  and,  as  it  has  been 
thoroughly  approved  of  by  men  deeply  versed  in  Greek  and 
Hebrew  learning,  it  ought  to  be  adopted  by  us.  It  may  be 
sufficient  to  mention  Origen,  passages  of  whom,  as  also  of 
other  writers,  have  been  cited  by  Lardner,  in  his  Supple- 
ment to  the  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  Vol.  i.  p.  383  s. 
The  Apostle,  however,  uses  a  phraseology,  which  bears  a 
strong  resemblance  to  that  of  the  Gnostic  philosophers  !  So, 
indeed,  some  learned  writers  say,  in  order  to  shew  that  St. 
John  contended  against  that  class  of  men.  I  grant  it.  In 
the  first  place,  however,  these  are  single  words,  and  particu- 
lar phrases,  separated  from  the  context ;  some  of  which  I 
have  cited  above.  Now  who  can  draw  any  inference  from 
single  words,  in  regard  to  the  resemblance  of  the  whole 
style  ? .  Many  words  pccur  in  the  New  Testament,  which 
are  found  also  in  Demosthenes,  and  other  elegant  Greek 
writers.  -  But  is  the  style  of  the  New  Testament  that  of  De- 
mosthenes, and  pure  Greek,  or  is  it  derived  from  Demosthe- 
nes ?  (Unless  any  one  will  be  so  absurd  as  to  say,  with  a 
certain  writer,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  had  great  delight  in  the 
eloquence  of  Demosthenes.)  There  are  also,  in  the  New 
Testament,  entire  phrases,  resembling  the  Hebrew  usage, 
which  are  found  in  Aeschylus  and  Sophocles,  and  some- 
times also  in  the  same  sense.  But  who  can  imagine  that  they 
are  taken  from  them  ? — But,  in  the  next  place,  it  would  be  a 


ZS^  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  6N0ST1C3 

Strong  presumption  against  my  opinion,  if  the  words  and 
phrases  supposed  to  have  been  derived  from  the  Gnostics, 
were  entirely  unknown  in  the  sacred  writings.  I  shall  now 
attempt  to  shew,  however,  that  this  is  not  the  fact.  If  I  shall 
be  able  to  do  this,  it  will  be  evident,  that  neither  are  these 
words  derived  from  the  Gnostic  or  Oriental  philosophy,  nor 
is  it  aimed  at  by  St.  John  in  this  place. 

Let  us  begin  with  the  word  ^oyof,  the  origin  of  which,  I 
must  freely  confess,  cannot  be  very  easily  explained  ;  espe- 
cially as  it  is  peculiar  to  St.  John  alone,  among  the  New  Tes- 
tament writers.  I  like,  most  of  all,  however,  the  opinion, 
that  reference  is  made  in  this  word  to  the  Hebrew  language. 
There  are  some,  also,  who  refer  to  the  usage  of  the  Chaldee 
tongue,  and  particularly  to  the  word  K}^'^  ;  on  which  subject 
there  has  been  much  discussion  among  various  writers. 
The  point  has  been  certainly  enforced  with  great  learning  ; 
and  I  should  be  strongly  disposed  to  agree  to  it,  were  not  the. 
'koyos  distinguished  from  God,  as  a  difterent  person  from  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  it  has  not  been  proved  with 
sufficient  certainty,  as  some  think,  that  the  Chaldee  writers 
use  this  word  in  any  other  way,  than  in  descriptions  of  God, 
or  of  some  peculiar  divine  revelation  ;  as  may  be  seen  even 
by  Mai.  iii.  5,  where,  instead  of  "  I  the  liord,"  the  Chaldee 
version  has  no^?:,  my  word.  As  it  is  still,  therefore,  a  subject 
of  doubt,  whether  it  was  customary  to  use  this  word  in  a  pe- 
culiar manner  respecting  the  Son  of  God,  I  would  not  as- 
sert positively,  that  the  usage  of  St.  John  is  to  be  traced  to 
that  source.  See  Deyling,  Obs.  S.  T.  i.  p.  221  s.,  Carpzov, 
Crit.  Sac.  p.  479  s.,  and  especially  John  Henry  Michaelis, 
Diss,  de  n"<D'D  Chaldaeorum.  I  should  think,  however,  that 
this  appellation  of  the  Saviour,  o  Xo'/og,  ought  to  be  accounted 
one  of  those  usages  of  speech,  which  were  at  that  time,  in- 
deed, frequent  among  the  Jews,  but  of  which  no  examples 
have  reached  us.  But  that  this  term  Xoyoj,  used  by  St.  John, 
was  customary  among  those  for  whom  he  wrote,  is  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  he  adds  nothing  in  explanation  of  it ; 
which,  perspicuous  as  he  is  in  all  other  respects,  he  would 
Qertainly  otherwise  have  done,  and  not  have  used  it  as 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  35'7 

a  word  well  known  to  all.  There  are  some  remains,  how- 
ever, of  this  usage,  in  the  Hebrew  language  ;  and  these  I 
shall  now  proceed  to  consider.  It  was  customary  with  the 
Hebrews  to  use  the  word  ^^2^^  to  express  a  divine  person,  and 
particularly  the  Son  of  God,  and  to  employ  it  as  a  synony- 
mous term  with  12);.  I  would  not,  however,  with  Deyling, 
I.  c.  quote  as  an  instance  of  this,  Ps.  xxxiii.  6  ;  as  commentators 
now  generally  agree,  that  "^3*1  signifies,  in  that  passage,  the 
divine  decree,  and  that  this  place,  therefore,  ought  no  more 
to  be  cited  in  proof  of  the  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  I  would  rather,  therefore,  with  Witsius, 
Miscell.  Sac.  Tom.  ii.  p.  102,  and  Deyling,  1.  c.  p.  223,  re- 
fer to  n.  Sam.  vii.  21 ;  where  David  confesses,  that  all  his 
blessings  had  come  to  him  ^^T\  "10^3 :  and  that  this  does  not 
mean,  "  on  account  of  the  promise,  kindly  made  to  me  by 
thee,"  as  it  may  perhaps  elsewhere,  is  shewn  by  the  parallel 
passage,  i.  Chron.  xvu.  19,  in  which  those  same  supplications 
of  David  are  repeated ;  for  there,  in  reference  to  the  same 
subject,  the  words  are.-jnaj;;  "^i^^^,  instead  of  ^w  *i^3^3,  as  in 
the  former  place.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  these  words 
set  forth  the  same  idea,  inasmuch  as  thev  are  used  concern- 
ing  the  same  subject ;  and  that  they  express  the  Messiah,  who 
is  sometimes  called  najP,  as  appears  from  Isai.  xlu.  1.  xlix.  I. 
3.  LU.  13,  and  also  from  the  circumstance  that  the  Septuagint 
renders  "iji,  in  the  passage  of  Samuel  referred  to,  by  5ouXo^, 
which  is  no  unimportant  argument  in  favor  of  the  opinion 
which  I  advance.  But  the  sense  of  this  word  12V  is  to  be 
determined  from  the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  language,  accord- 
ing to  which  it  does  not  mean  the  same  with  the  Latin  word 
servus ;  but  the  Hebrews  call  those  persons  the  servants  of 
kings,  whom  we,  at  the  present  day,  call  ministers,  in  a  very 
honorable  sense :  this,  therefore,  is  a  title  of  dignity,  with 
which  Moses  also  is  distinguished  in  the  Old  Testament, 
Josh.  1. 1,  as  has  been  remarked  by  Masius,  in  his  Commentary 
on  this  place,  contained  in  the  Critici  Sacri.  This  circum- 
stance may  be  urged  against  Geier,  on  Ps.  xvm.  1,  who  sup- 
poses that  the  word  signifies  an  abject  condition ;  which  is 
not  the  fact.     For  i?^,  like  the  same  word  in  Arabic,  means 


358  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

properly,  "  to  work  as  a  laborer,"  as  xo^riaw  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment.   Thus,  in  Gen.  n.  5,  nnnNn-nx  t':]!^  ;  iv.  2,  nnn^  -r^jr ; 
Prov.  xii.  11.  Isai.  xix.  9.  DWa  nb;;,  workers  in  flax.    But 
12^  means,  further,  to  pay  attention  to,  to  be  devoted  to', 
as  in  n.  Kings,    xvni.  7.    Isai.   xix.  23.       Whence    Dnn^ 
signifies  ministers,  whom  any  person  employs  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  his  designs.     The  Septuagint  almost  always  ren- 
ders D^  _j^  by  -jrar^sg  ;  but  in  Esth.  ii.  18,  it  translates  it  by  the 
honorable  appellation  91X01.     The  term  -rar^s?,  moreover,  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  same  way  as  on?:^  ;  a 
clear  instance  of  which  occurs  in  Matt.  xiv.  2,  where  the  'ffaTSee 
of  Herod,  are  his  friends,  or  ministers,  called  in  Mark,  vi.  21, 
^isyKfravss.     Hence  the  Apostles  are  called  ^ouXoj,    on  account 
of  the  august  office  of  the  Apostleship ;  and  SovXivsiv  Kup»w, 
means,  to  teach  the  gospel.     Of  the  same  force  is  the  word 
T^iTovpyhs  in  the  New  Testament,  which  is  a  title  applied  to 
kings,  who  are  called  Xsiroup/o/  to^  ©2oiJ,  and  5»axovoi,  Rom.  xiii. 
4.  6 ;  and  even  to  the  angels  themselves,  Heb.  1.  14 ;  nay 
more,  even  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,-  ch.  vni.  2.  6 :  and  ch. 
ni.  1.  he  is  called  ct^otfToXof  ttjj  6^J^oXoy^a^,  i.  e.  the  interpreter 
of  the  covenant,  sent  by  God,  in  order  that  he  might  ratify 
the  covenant ;  which  titles  have  nothing,  certainly,  of  an  ab- 
ject signification  in  them,  and  do  not  detract  at  all  from  the 
dignity  of  the  person  who  bears  them.     The  word  n.^jf^,  there- 
fore, means  nearly  the  same  as  ^^{SD,  by  which  very  title  the 
Saviour  is  distinguished  in  the  Old  Testament.     But  ^«^D 
means,  any  minister,  i.  e.  one  who  manages  aflfairs  in  the  place 
of  another;  and  is   applied  principally  to  the  counsellors  of 
princes,  and  generals  and  commanders  in  war,  not  only  in  the 
Hebrew,  but  also  in  the  other  Oriental  tongues.     Hence,  in 
the  Ethiopic,  it  signifies  a  president,  a  governor  ;  and  is  used 
for  app^wv  in  John,  ui.  1,  and  for /jySfAwv,  in  Matt.  xxvn.  2.     For 
the  same  reason  :!xHp  and  n-^ij'D,  Ps.  civ.  4,  and  124?  and  P'?.iyD, 
Josh.  1.  1,  are  used  indiscriminately,  although  it  cannot  be 
denied,  that  pntjp  is  used  by  the  Hebrews  in  a  somewhat 
more  honorable  sense. — I  have  made  these  observations 
that  it   might  be  seen,  that  the   words  "^31,  n.3V,  and  ^^)q 
are  synonymous,  and,  when  used  with  reference  to  our  Sa- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  359 

viour,  signify  the  whole  office,  committed  to  him  by  God  the 
Father  for  the  benefit  of  men  ;  and  that  thus  the  reason  might 
clearly  appear,  why  the  term  Xoyo?  is  used  by  St.  John  ;  and 
that  it  might  be  evident,  that  this  title  was  applied  to  the  Mes- 
siah in  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  looked 
for  in  the  Gnostic,  or  any  other  philosophy  of  that  kind.     But 
as  that  ministry  consisted  principally  in  recovering  the  salva- 
tion and  happiness  of  men,  to  the  great  glory  of  God,  and 
not  simply  in  making  it  known  to  mankind,  and  unfolding  the 
way  to  its  attainment  ;  on  this  account,  I  think  that  the  title 
Xoyog  refers  not  merely  to  the  office  of  a  teacher,  which  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  bore,  but  principally  to  his  character  as  Re- 
deemer, and  that  it  means,  therefore,  not  only  a  teacher,  or, 
as  Heumann  understands  it,  in  his  Explic.  Libr.  N.  T.  Tom. 
Ill,  p.  7,  one  who  makes  an  annunciation,  but  the  author  of  the 
salvation  and  happiness  of  the  human  race  ;  such  as  n3jr  is  de- 
scribed to  be,  by  Isaiah,  Ch.  lii,  and  liu,  and  as  St.  John 
speaks  of  him,  when  he  calls  him  (pwf,  ^wrj,  x.X.     And  this  is 
particularly  consonant  with  the  genius  of  the   Hebrew  lan- 
guage.    For  the  primary  and  proper  signification  of  13*1  is 
that  of  drawing,  leading  :  «ind  it  was  formerly  applied,  like 
the  same  word  in  the  Syriac,  to  shep  erds,  who  lead  their 
flock,  and  to  husbandmen,  who  draw  furrows,  on  which  ac- 
count the  Syriac  word  denotes  a  field,  and  plain  ;  and  it  thus 
agrees  with  the  primary  signification  of  i^v.    Hence  "i^'^p 
means  properly,  not  a  desert,  but  a  place  in  which  there  are 
no  cultivated  fields,  but  which  is  designed  for  pastures,  or  in- 
to which  a  flock  is  led,  as  Reland  ha^^  observed,  Palaest.  111. 
L.  I.  c.  56.  p.  374.     Thus  Joel,  i.  19,  where  the  words  nfN3 
"^J'ln  mean,  either  the  cottages  of  the  shepherds  and  the  sheep- 
folds,  or  rather  pleasant  pastures,  green  meadows  ;  "  the  ex- 
cessive drought  has  consumed  the  places  in  which  there  are 
pastures."     In  the  next  place,  however,  the  word  13t  is  ap- 
plied to  the  office  of  generals  and  kings,  and  also  of  teachers. 
Hence  it  signifies,  either  to  rule,  govern,  subject,  compel,  lead  ; 
as  Ps.  xvm.  48,  where  ^{^nn  d^sj;  "^t^h  is  well  translated  by  the 
Septuagint,  xai  uflroTagajXaoOg  u-ff'  ^fji.s,  instead  of  which,  in  u.  Sam. 
xxii.  48,  it  is  "'^^nili  xy^v  T*?0'>  irai5s'uwv  XaoO?  uiroxorw  (aou.     In  Ps. 


360  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

XLvii.  4,  and  cxxxvii.  3,  the  Syriac  word  occurs  in  the  same 
sense,  in  reference  to  those  who  lead  others  into  captivity, 
and  expresses  the  very  difficult  verb  SSn,  hence  na^  signifies 
a  general ;  or  to  teach,  discourse,  and  also  to  be  eloquent ; 
for  example,  in  i.  Kings,  v.  13,  where  Solomon's  acquaint- 
ance with  natural  productions  is  mentioned,  that  he  could 
also  explain  the  qualities  of  these.  See  also  Hos.  x.  4, 
and  XaXsw  in  the  New  Testament,  Mark,  ii.  2,  i.  Pet.  iv.  11. 
Hence  nnn  is,  in  numerous  places  in  the  Psalms,  synonymous 
with  n^in,  which  means  the  whole  system  of  divine  instruc- 
tion, and  in  this  way  also  Xo'yo.c  is  used  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  1.  Cor.  1. 18,  Xop^  tou  s'TauprG,  the  doctrine  concerning  Christ 
crucified  ;  also  Xoyog  <rou  X^ja'tou,  Xoyo?  rrjg  dXi^de/ac:,  n.  Tim.  n. 
15  ;  X6705  Tou  koZ,  1.  John,  n.  14,  Apoc.  1.  %  in  which  last 
place  XoYog  Tou  dsoiJ  and  /xa^ru^ia  Tou  x^itfroi;  are  synonymous, 
and  signify  the  Christian  doctrine,  and  M-a^cu^srv  tov  Xoyov  toCi 
0SOU,  to  teach  the  gospel.  Compare  also  Exod.  iv.  14,  and 
Jer.  1.  6.  Now  if  these  significations  be  applied  to  the  Sa- 
viour, when  distinguished  by  the  title  of  Xoyoj,  the  reason  of 
so  calling  him  may  be  more  easily  perceived  ;  and  it  may 
thereby  be  seen,  that  the  name  is  'not  to  be  looked  for  in  the 
Gnostic,  or  any  other  philosophy.  If  the  observations  1  have 
now  made  are  thought,  by  some,  not  to  carry  with  them  that 
complete  evidence  which  ought  to  exist,  when  we  are  oblig- 
ed to  gather  the  meaning  and  sense  from  the  words,  as  in 
prominent  points  of  doctrine,  or  when  the  context  and  sub- 
ject-matter give  no  assistance  in  arriving  at  a  true  understand- 
ing of  the  signification  ;  yet  they  are  of  some  weight  in  es- 
tablishing the  interpretation  for  which  I  contend,  from  the 
usage  and  analogy  of  languages :  and  this  is,  perhaps,  all  that 
is  necessary,  in  passages  of  this  kind. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  those  other  traces  of  the  Gnostics, 
which  are  thought  to  exist  in  the  gospel  of  St.  John  ;  in  the 
examination  of  which  I  may  be  more  brief.  Besides  the 
word  Xoyoff,  particular  stress  is  laid  upon  the  terms  <P<*>s  and 
^w?5,  which  are  thought  to  have  been  used  for  the  purpose  of 
opposing  the  Gnostics.    Thus  Grotius  observes,  at  this  place. 


IS  THE  NEW  TESTAMEJ^IT.  36t 

*•  The  fable  of  the  Gnostics  is  refuted,  that  the  Xo'ycs  is  one 
emanation  of  God,  ?w>?  another,  cpCJs  another.     St.  John  shews, 
on  the  contrary,  that  all  these  titles  suit  Christ  alone."     It  is 
hardly  necessary  to  say  any  thing  in  opposition  to  this  idea, 
since  it  is  obvious,  that  the  words  opdg  and  ^wn  savor,  not  of 
Gnosticism,  but  Hebraism ;  for  the  words  D^;n  and  "iiK  oc- 
cur in  numerous  places  of  the  Psalms,  in  the  sense  of  felicity 
of  every  kind,  tranquillity  of  mind,  joy,  and  the  hope  of  ever- 
lasting life ;  as  niD,  b)K^,  and  ^K^n,  are  used  for  miseries  and 
calamity :  for  example,  Ps.  xxxvi.  10,  where  the  two  word§ 
above  mentioned  are  connected  together;*    Ps.  lxxi.20; 
Isai.  IX.  1 ;    and  in  the  New  Testament,  John,  x.  10.     And 
such  a  Saviour  is  promised  in  the  Old  Testament ;  that  he 
should  be  D:u  "tin,  Isai.  xlix.  6 ;  and  he  was  acknowledged  to 
be  such  in  the  New  Testament,  Luke,  ii.  32,  <pws  elg  dToxaXu- 
^j^jv  ^^vwv ;  and  he  himself,  also,  applies  this  title  to  himself, 
John,  VIII.  12,  ^yw  £»>»  to  (pwj  tov  xoV^ou,  which  words  I  would 
thus  render,  *'  I  am  that  light  of  the  world,"  predicted,  viz. 
by  the  prophets :  and  I  would  understand  it  as  referring  not 
to  the  doctrine,  delivered  by  him,  but  to  the  salvation  pro- 
cured by  him  ;  as  appears  not  only  from  the  words  that  fol- 
bw,  «|e«  <ro  (pwff  7r)g  ^w>jf,  but  by  the  parallel  places,  ch.  ix.  5, 
and  XII.  46.     And  so,  also,  I  think  those  words  D!U  ifN»  ought 
to  be  interpreted  ;  viz.  in  reference  to  the  author  of  human  sal- 
vation and  happiness  ;  and  also  (pug  and  ^wn  in  the  place  before 
us.     For  these  words  are  used  indiscriminately,  although  with 
some  slight  difference  of  meaning,  which  is  this.   The  word  ^wt? 
signifies  happiness,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  refer,  at  the  same 
time,  to  the  power  of  conferring  it  upon  men  ;  on  which  ac- 
count Christ  is  said  to  quickei;!  (^wo<jfoj5rv)  men,  which  does  not. 
mean,  as  interpreters  commonly  suppose,  to  regenerate,  but  to 
bestow  salvation ;  but  ^wg  signifies  happiness,  so  as  to  indicate. 


"*  The  sense  of  this  most  beautiful  passage  is  this:    Thou  art  the 
source  of  true  and  permanent  happiness,  and  from  this  source  every 
kind  of  happiness  abounds  to  us ;  7^%  according  to  the  Hebrew  iffiage 
means,  "to enjoy." 

46 


vTdl^  KO  TRACE3  OF  Tllli  GNOSTICS 

at  the  same  time,  the  method  of  obtaining  it,  viz.  by  the  illu- 
mination of  the  mind,  i.  e.  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  Jesus 
Ghrist.  Since  these  words,  therefore,  are  used  in  such  a  man- 
ner, as  to  be  in  no  way  applicable  to  the  Gnostics,  and  since 
the  signification  which  they  have  is  not  unknown  in  other 
parts  of  Scripture  ;  it  is  evident,  that  the  use  of  them  should  not 
be  considered  as  being  derived  from  the  Gnostic,  or  Platonic 
philosophy,  as  many  think  with  Le  Clerc  ;  and  that  the  word 
^w'^  V.  4,  must  not  be  explained  according  to  Semler's  inter- 
pretation, in  his  Paraphr.  of  St.  John's  gospel,  with  reference  to 
"  spiritual  natures  enjoying  perpetual  life,  as  the  most  excellent 
species  twv  *avTWv,  and  Christ,  the  creator  of  them."  It  may  be 
further  remarked,  that  the  use  of  the  words  ^(^r,  and  (pdg,  in  the 
sense  of  happiness,  as  of  djcorog  in  the  sense  of  misery,  is  con- 
formable to  the  custom  of  all  languages  ;  as  has  been  already 
observed  by  others,  and  shewn,  with  reference  to  profane  wri- 
ters, by  Bos,  Exercitatt.  ad  M.  T.  p.  52,  and  Elsner,  Obs. 
■  Sac.  p.  290  s.  I  am  very  much  surprised  that  Grot i us,  who, 
in  other  places,  perceives  all  this  perfectly  well,  should  have 
liesitated  with  regard  to  this  passage.  Such,  however,  is 
usually  the  case  with  those,  who  go  to  the  investigation  of 
any  writer's  meaning,  when  blinded  by  a  preconceived  opi- 
nion. 

No  less  clear  is  the  matter,  in  regard  to  the  word  iJ^ovoysv-ng^ 
r.  14,  and  18.  Grotius  is  of  opinion  that  this  word,  also,  is 
used  in  opposition  to  the  Gnostics,  observing,  that  "  the 
^Gnostics  are  in  brief  terms  condemned,  who  made  the  Xoyo^ 
one,  iiQvoysvyig  another,  and  Jesus  another."  And  yet  he  him- 
self has  well  shewn,  that,  in  order  to  understand  this  phrase, 
we  must  recur  to  the  usage  of  the  Septuagint  in  rendering  the 
Hebrew  Tn^,  examples  of  which  are  to  be  found  in  Gen.  xxii. 
2.  12.  16,  Amos,  VIII.  10,  Zech.  xii.  10,  &c.,  and  Prov.  iv. 
"3 ;  from  which  places  it  may  be  seen,  that  this  word  means 
♦  very  much  beloved  ;'  for,  in  the  former  of  them,  they  trans- 
late it  by  ayoL'Xrirhg,  and,  in  the  last-mentioned,  by  dyairuii^svos. 
This  is  certainly  true;  except  that  Grotius  is  mistaken  in 
supposing,  that  aya-riiTo?  means,  dear,  or  very  much  beloved ; 
since  it  rather  signifies  "  only ;"  for,  in  the  above-mention- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  363" 

ed  passage  of  Genesis,  kaac  is  called  Dn^nx  Tn^  |3,  and  it 
is  added,  r»j3nK-'iL7K  ;  which  would  have  been  superfluous,  had 
not  the  whole  place  signified,  "  take  thine  only  son,  who  is 
also  very  dear  to  thee."  This  is  evident,  also,  from  the  trans- 
lation of  Symmachus,  who  has  rendered  TTS'^  by  m-ovo^,  and 
that  of  Aquila,  who  translates  it  by  iMvoytvris ;  as  St.  Paul  also 
does,  in  Heb.  xi.  17.  Finally,  this  is  in  accordance  with  are- 
fined  usage  of  the  Greek  language,  by  which  an  only  son  is 
called  dya1rv^rog,  In  reference  to  this  are  to  be  explained  the 
well-known  words,  in  Matt.  ni.  17,  and  Luke,  ui.  22.  ouVo'g 
l(fTiv  6  ulo'g  fAou  6  dya'ifrirog,  iv  w  su^oxirjo'a,  i.  e.  this  is  my  son, 
beloved  as  an  only  son. — Since  St.  John,  then,  in  the  use  of 
this  word,  followed  the  usage  of  the  Septuagint,  and  it  was  a 
common  thing  with  the  sacred  writers  to  distinguish  the  Son 
of  God  in  this  manner ;  for  what  reason,  I  pray,  should  it  be 
asserted,  that  the  Gnostics  are  condemned  in  this  place  ?  The 
Gnostics,  forsooth,  had  one  called  Xo'/o^,  another  fxovoysvr^f : 
St.  John  here  mentions  fAovoygviiff  ;  ergo 

I  am  surprised  that  Grotius  should  consider  the  words  *X'<i- 
^ne  X^^""^  '*'*'  aX»3^e<aff,  in  the  same  verse,  as  referring  also  to 
the  Gnostics.  "  Here,  also,"  he  observes,  "  the  dream  of  the 
Gnostics  is  refuted,  according  to  whom  ahyj^sia  was  different 
from  Xoyof  and  Christ."  For  it  is  well  known,  that  the  words 
non  and  noi*  are,  in  numerous  places  of  the  Old  Testament, 
joined  together,  as  Ps.  xxv.  10,  lxxxix.  15,  and  in  this  very 
Ch.  I.  of  John,  verse  17  ;  and  that  they  ai-e,  by  a  hendyadis, 
for  x°^P'^  dXifi&ivYi^  i.  e.  very  true,  or,  perfect  grace.  But  *  full 
of  perfect  grace,'  means,  very  gracious,  by  far  the  most  be- 
nignant. But  if  we  thus  interpret  these  words,  as  we  mu^t 
do,  according  to  the  Hebrew  usage  ;  how  can  we  suppose 
them  to  refer  to  the  dx>j&£<a  of  the  Gnostics  ?  Perhaps  the 
Gnostics  had  a  x^P'^  ^i^so  ? 

Grotius  also  thinks,  that,  in  verse  16,  "  St.  John  shews  the 
true  use  of  the  word  wX»)pwfAa,  in  opposition  to  the  Gnostics." 
The  Gnostics  talked  about  a  certain  crXTjpw^ta,  therefore  St. 
John,  in  this  place,  referred  to  the  same.  This  otherwise  ex- 
cellent commentator  did  not  bear  in  mind,  that  the  Apostle  fol- 
lows the  Hebrew  use  of  the  word  nSo.  which,  jts  I  have  aK 


Sl'&i  NO  'I RACES  X)F  TH.H:  GNOSTICS 

ieady  shewn,  on  Col.  u.  9,  means  either  a  quantity  destined 
for  some  purpose,  or  absolutely,  which  signification  is  not 
without  examples  in  Greek  writers ;  or  plenty  and  abundance  ; 
and  that  this  is  the  meaning  in  the  present  passage  :  so  that 
the  sense  is  ;  out  of  the  abundance  of  his  favors,  we  have 
obtained  very  great  and  constant  gracfe  ;  or,  we  have  receiv- 
ed very  great  benefits  from  him  ;  for  this  is  the  meaning  of 
p^a^ig  avTi  x^piTog,     This  same  usage  St.  John  undoubtedly  had 
in  view,  in  the  words  6  wv  sis  tov  koX-^'ov  tou  "ffarpoc,  in  verse  18  ; 
which  phrase  is  thought  by  Grotius,  and  others  with  him, 
•*  to  have  been  used  in  an  improper  sense  by  the  Gnostics,  and 
here  in  its  true  and  correct  meaning."     It  is  derived,  how- 
erep,  from  the  Hebrew  mode  of  banqueting,  and  signifies  the 
greatest  degree  of  intimacy,  and  community  of  purposes. 
Profane  writers  use  the  same  phrase  to  express  this  idea  : 
see  Elsner,  Obs.  Sac.  p.  295.     In  this  sense  it  is,  that  Laza- 
rus is  said,  Luke  xvi.  22  s.  to  be  sv  rw  xoXiru)  cou  'A/3^aa/x,  i.  e. 
intimate  with  Abraham,  or,  very  near  to  him,  or,  enjoying  the 
same  happiness.     And  the  same  is  the  meaning,  in  the  pre- 
sent passage,  in  regard  to  the  Son  of  God  :  he  has  the  same 
nature  and  dignity  with  the  Father.     I  do  not  see,  therefore, 
\iOVf  St.  John  is  defending  the  sense  of  this  phrase  from  the 
perversions  of  the  Gnostics  ;   and  I  am  clearly  of  opinion, 
that  Grotius,  and  the  other  learned  men  who  follow  him, 
would  never  have  thought  of  such  an  idea,  nor  have  seen  any. 
thing  here  of  the  Gnostics,  unless  they  had  been  at  great  pains 
to  discover  them. 

So  much  in  regard  to  St.  John's  gospel.  Let  us  now  pro- 
ceed to  his  First  Epistle  ;  of  which  the  following  places  are 
generally  considered  as  having  the  same  bearing  ;  viz.  Ch. 
n.  18  s.,  22  s.,  and  26.  ni.  4—7,  iv.  1—3.  I  shall  briefly  con- 
sider the  principal  passages.  The  greatest  diflSculty  consists 
in  the  question,  whom  the  Apostle  means  by  avT/p^pitfToi  and 
■l^sudorf^ocprirai ;  in  determining  which  commentators  diflfer,  as  the 
terms  are  used  in  various  ways  in  Scripture.  It  is  evident, 
however,  that  the  dvTj'x^jrfTo^,  in  these  passages,  is  diflferent 
from  that  spoken  of  in  n.  Thess.  u  ;  and  that  the  ■^evSo'jr^ocpyi- 
^0.1  are  not  the  same  who  are  mentioned  in  that  w^ell-known 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMET^r.  3(i5 

place,  Matt.  vu.  15,  where  we  are  to  understand,  not  those 
who  teach  false  doctrines,  but  those  who  live  in  a  manner  un-. 
worthy  of  Christ  and  of  his  gospel,  as  the  context  there  evi- 
dently shews  ;  and  they  appear  to  be  the  same  with  the  4>6u- 
Su'jrctf roXoi,  ii.  Cor.  xi.  13,  who  are  so  called,  partly  for  the  rea- 
son just  stated,  and  partly  because  they  professed  to  be  great- 
er than  the  Apostle  Paul,  on  account  of  some  outward  advan- 
tages.    In  this  place,  however,  it  is  evident  that  the  dyn'-x^^KfToif 
Ch.  II.  18,  and  the  4/eu5o<n'/)0(p>3rai,  Ch.  iv.  1,  are  the  same  ;  for 
they  are  so  described  by  the  Apostle,  viz.  Ch.  ii.  22,  as  dpnC- 
fASvoi,  on  'Iijtfoug  oux  gtfTiv  0  xp'^'J'of  >  denying  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ ; 
and  Ch.  iv.  3,  as  l"-^  o^uoKoyoxlvTSg  cov  'iTitfouv  p^^irfTov  £v  (fapxi  eXriXu- 
^o'ra,  Hot  confessing  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  But 
whom  are  we  to  understand  as  being  here  referred  to  ?  Mos- 
HEiM,  Instit.  Hist.  Eccl.  maj.  p.  313,  and  others  with  him, 
think  that  these  two  classes  of  men  are  to  be  clearly  distin- 
guished from  each  other,  and  that  by  the  former  are  to  be  un- 
derstood the  Jews,  who  denied  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  by  the  latter,  without  doubt,  the  Gnostics,  who 
denied  his  human  nature ;  for  it  is  one  thing,  he  observes,  apvouC- 
6ai,  oTi  'I^irfoug  oux  IWiv  o  XpitfTaf,  to  deny  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
and  another,  f*^  oixoXoysh  rhv  'IvjtfoiJv  X^irfrov  ^v  (fapxi  ^X'»iXu5oVa,  not 
to  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.     I  am  sur- 
prised, however,  that  Mosheim  should  have  made  a  distinc- 
tion, where  none  existed ;  for,  by  a  comparison  of  both  pla- 
ces, it  is  plain  that  these  phrases  mean  exactly  the  same  thing, 
viz.  to  deny  that  Jesus,  the  son  of  Mary,  is  the  Christ,  the 
Saviour  of  the  human  race,  sent  by  God  into  this  world  :  for 
it  is  evident  that  in  Ch.  iv.  3,  the  Apostle  repeats  what  he  had 
said  in  Ch.  ii.  22,  and  that  he  makes  it  a  token  for  distinguish- 
ing true  from  false  teachers,  that  the  former  confess  that  Je- 
sus is  the  Christ,  the  Redeemer  of  the  human  race,  but  the 
latter  deny  it.    What,  therefore,  is  expressed  in  one  place  by 
b  dpvoufAgvoj,  on  li^tfoug  oux  Itfriv  o  XpitfTo?,  is,  in  the  Other,  6  f/,r)  ofjio- 
Xoygr  Tov  'IrjCouv  X^iCtov  iv  <fapxi  iXYfkv&ora,     And  what  difference 
is  there,  whether  I  should  deny  that  Jesus,  the  son  of  Mary, 
is  the  Messiah,  i.  e.  the  Saviour  of  the  human  race,  or,  that 
Jesus,  who  is  the  Messiah,  has  come  into  the  world  ?    It  is 


366 


NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 


impossible,  moreover,  that  the  Jews  or  Gnostics  can  be  meant ; 
for,  in  the  first  place,  those  avrly^pidTtn  are  said,  Ch.  ii.  19,  to 
have  abandoned  the  Christian  religion,  ^^  -^/awv  i^TjXaov  ;  which 
is  not  applicable,  at  least,  to  the  Jews  ;  and,  in  the  next  place, 
MosHEiM  shews,  in  regard  to  the  Gnostics,  (see  his  work, 
cited  above,  p.  395,  and  in  many  other  places,)  that  they  con- 
sidered Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Saviour  of  the  hu- 
man race.     This  excellent  writer,  therefore,  has  allowed  that 
they  did  not  altogether  deny  Christ's  humanity.     What  other 
persons,  then,  are  we  to  understand  as  being  here  described  ? 
Those  adversaries,  truly,  of  Jesus  Christ,  who,  rejecting  the 
Christian  faith,  spoke  in  the  most  reviling  terms  of  his  redemp- 
tion, and  of  his  whole  religion  ;  and  particularly  those  impos- 
tors, who,  boasting  themselves  to  be  the  Messiah,  endeavor- 
ed totally  to  destroy  the  claims  of  our  Saviour  :  so  that  avrU 
j^pitfroi  are  the  same  as  4^u^o;)^/»(fTo»,  which  is  not  only  allowed 
by  the  nature  of  the  case,  for  he  who  is  4^su^6p^pi(rro^,  a  false 
Christ,  is  also  avTi;)^pid'«rof,  antichrist ;  but  also  by  the  nature  of 
the  Greek  language,  according  to  which  avrij^^io'TOff  may  mean, 
one  who  boasts   himself  to  be  Christ,  or,  who  assumes  the 
place  of  Christ  ;  for  avW  is  so  used  in  composition,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, avTi'Sorov,  a  gift,  which  is  conferred  in  the  place  of  ano- 
ther. The  instances  cited  to  prove  the  contrary,  by  Brucker, 
on  this  place,  and  by  Calovius,  against  Grotius,  are  of  no 
force.     And  that  there  were,  at  that  period,  many  such  mad- 
men, who  professed  to  be  the  Messiah,  I  have  already  shewn 
from  JosEPeus,  and  others  ;  and  it  is  also  plain  from  the  pro- 
phecy of  Christ,  Matt.  xxiv.  5.  24.     There  is  no  necessity 
for  mentioning  every  individual,  the  thing  being  evident ;  and 
this,  moreover,  cannot  be  done,  as  the  names  of  most  of  them 
have  not  come  down  to  our  times.     Otherwise  I  would,  with 
Grotius,  class  among  such  persons  Simon  Magus,  and  Dosi- 
theus,  both  of  whom,  as  I  have  already  observed,  were  rather 
enemies  of  Jesus  Christ,  than  heretics. 

How  Chapter  ni.  v.  4,  is  at  all  in  point,  I  cannot  possibly 
perceive.  Perhaps  because  the  Apostle  is  commonly  suppos- 
ed to  be  arguing,  in  that  place,  after  the  manner  of  a  refined 
philosopher,  who  begins  with  the  explanation  of  his  subject ; 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMEIJT. 

wluch  he  would  not  have  done,  unless  his  intention  had  been 
to  refute  some  particular  persons.  But  who  are  these  ?  No 
others,  without  doubt,  but  the  Gnostics.  I  doubt  it,  however, 
exceedingly.  For  there  is,  in  this  place,  no  explanation  of 
sin,  as  is  generally  supposed,  but  rather  an  admonition  to  avoid 
sin,  grounded  upon  two  reasons  ;  the  first  of  which  is  drawn 
from  the  defilement,  both  to  body  and  mind,  contracted  by 
sin  ;  and  the  second,  from  the  guilt  of  a  violated  law,  which 
accrues  from  it.  For  though  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  great 
emphasis  in  the  words,  -srag  6  ^oiwv  rviv  af^apTjav,  as  Alberti,  in 
his  Observationes,  on  this  passage,  and  others  are  of  opinion, 
yet  I  do  think  that  the  word  ajuta/jTia  has  here  the  sense  of  the 
defilement  of  sin  ;  as  is  evident  from  its  being  opposed  to  the 
words,  otyvi^si  Jajrov,  xadus  hsTvos  oLyvog  i(fTt.  The  meaning  of 
this  place,  therefore,  is  this  :  "  Whosoever  defiles  himself  by 
doing  what  is  wrong,  at  the  same  time  violates  the  law,  and 
contracts  the  guilt  of  a  violated  law  ;  but  that  very  defile- 
ment, which  is  in  sin,  is  a  departure  from  the  law."  This 
admonition  is  in  itself  so  excellent  and  admirable,  that 
it  cannot  be  thought  too  identical,  or  superfluous,  even  if  we 
do  not  adopt  the  opinion  of  Michaelis,  Einl.  ins  N.  T.  P, 
M.  p.  1524.  Gott.  1788,*  that  the  design  of  it  was  to  con- 
fute the  wickedness  of  the  Gnostics.  Verse  9,  of  the  same 
chapter,  which  also  some  think,  though  I  know  not  for  what 
reason,  to  refer  to  the  Gnostics,  seems  to  me  to  be  capable  of 
an  easy  application  to  apostasy.  I  approve,  indeed,  exceed- 
ingly, of  the  interpretation  of  some  very  learned  divines,  who 
understand  the  words  xa<  ou  5vvaTou  afji.apTav5iv,  thus;  "inas- 
much as  he  is  born  again,  and  so  long  as  he  continues  in  re- 
generation and  faith."  There  is  no  necessity  for  this,  how- 
ever, if  we  interpret  the  words,  thus  ;  "  whosoever  has  been 
led,  by  the  power  of  the  divine  word,  to  embrace  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  has  known  its  truth,  excellence,  and  pleasantness, 


*  His  words  are,  "  which  seeras  to  he  a  proposition  too  identical,  and 
superfluous,  if  we  read  it  without  reference  to  any  polemical  design." 
C  See  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol.  iv.  p.  406,  Lond.  1803.— Tr. "] 


368  NO  TRACES  OP  THli  GNOSTICJS 

and  has  thoroughly  felt  and  experienced  it,  will  certainly  not 
apostatize  from  it,  since  the  divine  word  continually  exerts  its 
efficacy  in  strengthening  his  mind-;  yea,  it  cannot  be,  that  he 
should  abandon  and  abjure  this  religion,  after  having  once  ac- 
knowledged it,  for,  through  the  divine  goodness,  his  mind  is- 
so  strengthened  and  confirmed,  that  such  a  thing  appears  to 
be  altogether  impossible  (d(5uvarov)."     This  meaning  is  certain- 
ly not  absurd,  and  agrees  perfectly  with  the  context,  and  with 
the  subject  itself;  for  the  Apostle  adds,  vn    ccrsp^a  aurou  Iv 
ca)Tu  fxs'vsj.     Now  (f^opoL,  which  is  the  same  as  (ftipiiotf  is  ele- 
gantly used,  1.  Pet.  i.  23,  in  reference  to  the  power  of  the  gos- 
pel, or  the  Xo'yoj  Jwv  ©sou.      Moreover,  the  power  exerted 
upon  the  mind  by  the  truth  and  excellence  of  the  Christian 
religion,  is  proved  by  personal  experience  ;  and  may  be  per- 
ceived in  the  fact,  that  so  many  thousands  of  men,  of  different 
ranks,  not  only  have  defended  it  with  the  utmost  constancy, 
amidst  threatenings  of  the  most  cruel  punishments,  but  have 
also,  with  astonishing  cheerfulness,  sealed  the  truth  of  it  with 
their  blood,  and  with  an  ignominious  and  most  excruciating 
death  ;  and  were  willing  to  die  a  thousand  times,  rather  than 
abjure  and  deny  it. 

I  now  proceed  to  consider  the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  ; 
for  here  also,  and  particularly  in  Chapter  n,  traces  of  the 
Gnostics  are  looked  for,  and  of  course  found.  There  is  men- 
tion here  made,  it  is  said,  of  ■^s-oSo§i8a<fxci\oi  (false  teachers,),  in 
describing  whom  the  Apostle  uses  a  phraseology,  different 
from  that  which  he  employs  in  the  First  Epistle,  and  also  in 
the  other  portion  of  the  Second,  and  agreeing  with  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Gnostics ;  it  may  hence  be  clearly  perceived, 
therefore,  that,  in  this  chapter, ,  reference  is  made  to  them. 
Let  us  consider,  then,  first,  these  i^sutJo^j^aCxaXoi,  and  see  who 
are  to  be  understood  by  them  ;  and  then  examine  the  phraseo- 
logy of  tjie  Apostle,  and  its  diversity.  On  both  these  points 
I  shall  be  brief. 

It  is  evident  that  these  -^svSodiScLdxakoi  are  so  called  by  the 
Apostle,  not  only  on  account  of  very  grievous  errors,  but  be- 
cause of  their  wicked  life ;  and  that  two  crimes  are  especially 
laid  to  their  charge.     The  one  was,  in  general,  their  abandon 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  369 

!)(]  morals,  and  dissolute  and  licentious  mode  of  life  ;  the  other, 
which  arose  out  of  this,  their  contempt  of  magistrates.  They 
obtrude  upon  others,  says  the  Apostle,  i).  1,  very  pernicious 

opinions,  itapsKfa^ovcfiv  aipidetg  d'n'uKeias,  (which  phrase  has  been 
already  considered,)  rejecting  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  re- 
deemed them  by  his  death,  (tov  dyopatfcLvra.  aurovg  6s(fiF6rriv 
apvo!;fji£vo«,)  and  placing  their  chief  happiness  in  feasting  sumptu- 
ously every  day,  and  indulging  in  the  most  depraved  passions  ; 
V.  13.  They  are  inflamed  with  inordinate  lust,  v.  14,  (o(p9-aX- 
fAoug  E^ovTss  f^stfToug  fj^oj^aXi^og,*)  and  are  thoroughly  practised 
in  all  the  arts  of  heaping  up  and  collecting  money  (xa.p6iav 
y£yufji.voctffAsvT)v  crXsovs^jajg  f  sxo^'rsg).  And  not  only  by  this  aban- 
doned course  of  life,  but  also  by  their  way  of  talking,  carrying 
the  appearance  of  great  affection  and  benevolence,  in  order 
that  they  may  make  whatever  they  wish  a  source  of  gain,  (sv 
'jrXsovs^ia-^  'n'XatfToTg  Xoyoig,  v,  3.)  they  endeavor  to  deceive  minds 
that  are  not  sufficiently  confirmed,  +ux^^  acrrjpjxToug  dsKsa^ovrsg^ 
^.  14  ;  and  insolently  treat  them,  as  merchandize  to  make  a 
traffic  of,  s^'s'opsuo'ovTai,  §  v.  3 ;  and  entice  them  to  the  farthest 
and  most  wanton  extremes  of  lust ;  11  and  teach  that  therein, 


*  See  Bos,  Exercitt.  Phil.  p.  287  ;  who  admirably  explains  thes& 
words. 

t  It  matters  not  whether  we  read  TrKisvi^Uii,  or  wxtan^Ui ,  since 
both  readings  are  supported  by  the  authority  of  MSS.,  and  allowed  by 
the  genius  of  the  Greek  language.     Comp.  Wolfius,  on  this  passage- 

X  if  TtKtm^iat..  There  is  here  observable  a  twofold  hebraism ;  first,  in 
the  signification  of  the  word  Trxeovi^itt,  which  answers  to  the  Hebrew 
word  ^V3>  which  means  gain,  and  is  sometimes  rendered  in  the  Septua- 
gintby  3-^8ove|<at,  as  Grotius  shews,  onEph.  iv.  19;  Sind  secondly,  in 
the  structure  of  the  words :  for  f»  is  for  ^tal,  as  Grotius  has  also  observed, 
on  this  passage  of  St.  Peter. 

§.  Compare  Gaorius,  on  this  place,  respecting  the  meaning  of  this 
word. 

11  Instead  of  dt\oMUis,  v.  2,  we  ought  undoubtedly,  with  Grotius,  to 
read  ct^ihytixn;  in  which  reading  the  MSS.  and  Versions  generally 
agree.  This  great  man,  however,  is  mistaken  in  supposing,  that  uath- 
yuu,  Eph.  IV.  19,  means  the  beginnings,  or  first  degrees  of  lewdness.  For 
this  word  always  signifies  violent,  unbridled,  and  shameless  lust. 
Hence  daxyk  means  one  who  is  lustful  to  a  shameless  and  rare  degree  : 
and  ti<rt\yio»  is  applied  to  a  species  of  lust,  which  decency  forbids  nae  to 
ijame. 

47 


370 


NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 


partly,  Christian  liberty  consists.  Comp.  v,  12,  and  Jude, 
V.  4.  And,  on  account  of  this  same  Christian  liberty,  they 
despise  magistrates,  and  are  not  afraid  to  refuse  obedience  to 
them,  V.  10,  pretending  that  Christians  are  not  subject  to  hu- 
man governors :  and  they  promise  things  that  are  utterly  vain, 
iiifipoyxa  fxaTai6<riiTog  (p^syyo'fjtsvoi,  v.  18;  viz.  v.  19,  full  liberty  to 
gratify  every  lust  and  desire,  iXsu^sp/av,  while,  nevertheless, 
they  subject  themselves  and  others  to  the  severe  and  cruel  bond- 
age of  the  filthiest  ((p^opa)  vices.  Abandoning,  therefore,  the 
doctrine  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  they  have  very  grievously 
gone  astray,  r.  15,  exactly  according  to  the  plan  and  course 
of  Balaam,  {o^k  tou  BaXaafx)  who  preferred  (d/a-n'aw,  from  the 
Hebrew  3n}<)  the  unrighteous  rewards  received  from  Balak,  to 
obedience  to  God.  But  as  Balaam  instigated  the  Moabites 
to  entice  the  children  of  Israel  to  share  in  their  forbidden 
lusts,  and  through  these  lusts  to  lead  them  into  idolatry,  and,  by 
this  means,  brought  upon  them  the  severest  punishments  from 
God  ;  so  these  false  teachers,  giving  Christians  the  Hberty  of 
gratifying  their  carnal  appetites,  in  order  to  answer  their  own 
avaricious  views,  have,  in  like  manner,  provoked  against  the 
church  and  themselves  the  anger  of  God,  and  those  severe 
chastisements  and  penalties  which  usually  follow  this  anger ; 
which,  indeed,  shall  not  linger  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  are  al- 
ready prepared  for  them ;  olg  to  x^r^Aa  hitakai  ovx  dpysT,  xai 
Jj  ditCSKsioL  auTWv  ou  vutfrajsi  ;  r.  3» 

But  the  question  now  comes,  who  these  4^£u5o5»5a(rxaXo( 
were  ?  No  other,  undoubtedly,  than  the  Gnostics,  say  some 
learned  writers.  Now  1  will  not  urge  too  strongly  the  fact, 
that  the  place  referred  to,  in  this  chapter,  is  a  prediction  re- 
specting teachers  of  this  kind,  who  were  yet  to  arise  ;  and 
that  the  Gnostics,  therefore,  cannot  be  meant,  because,  ac- 
cording to  the  opinion  of  these  same  writers,  the  origin  of 
the  Gnostic  philosophy  is  to  be  traced  much  higher  than  that 
period,  which  St.  Peter  here  predicts.  At  any  rate  it  may 
be  seen,  that  if  this  place  be  regarded  as  referring  to  the 
Gnostics,  their  doctrine  had  not,  as  those  writers  think,  as  yet 
arisen,  nor  begun  to  be  celebrated  and  spread  abroad  : 
which  is  what  I  have  been  contending  for.     There  is  no  ne- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  37V 

BF  cessity,  however,  for  supposing  the  Gnostics  to  be  meant 
W  liere,  as  it  is  well  known  that,  among  Christians  themselves, 
I  there  was  a  great  number  of  teachers,  and  of  others,  who 
I  maintained  wicked  opinions  of  this  kind  both  by  word  and 
example,  of  whom  the  Apostle,  in  this  place,  predicts  a  larger 
and  more  conspicuous  number.  And,  for  this  reason,  there 
are  so  many  explanations  of  the  nature  of  Christian  liberty, 
in  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  as  in  i.  Peter,  n.  16 ;  Rom. 
XI.  20  ;  vm.  2  s.  14  s.  xiv.  16  ;  ii.  Cor.  in.  17 ;  so  many 
severe  reproofs  and  threatenings,  i.  Cor.  v.  and  vi ;  so  many 
injunctions  to  connect,  with  faith,  holiness  and  true  piety  of 
heart  and  life.  Jam.  n  ;  so  many  exhortations  to  perseverance 
in  faith ;  finally,  so  many  admonitions  to  obey  the  civil  ru- 
lers, even  though  they  were  heathens  and  wicked  men ;  i. 
Pet.  II.  13  s.  Rom.  xm.  1  s.  Now  do  these  explanations,  re- 
proofs, exhortations,  and  precepts,  relate  to  the  wickedness 
of  the  Gnostics  only  ?  Who  ever  supposed  that  the  Second 
Chapter  of  St.  James,  throughout  the  whole  of  which  he  op- 
poses men,  who  led  a  wicked  hfe,  refers  to  the  Gnostics  ?  It 
is  more  probable,  therefore,  that  in  this  place  are  meant  per- 
sons of  notorious  wickedness ;  who,  having  abandoned  the 
Christian  faith,  disseminated  iniquitous  opinions  not  only  by 
their  example,  but  also  by  their  language  and  system,  and 
enticed  others  to  embrace  and  follow  them  ;  in  a  word,  apos- 
tates, who,  having  abjured  their  faith,  and  Jesus  Christ,  lived 
in  a  most  abandoned  manner,  and  also  corrupted  others ;  of 
whom  St.  John,  after  Peter,  speaks  in  his  First  Epistle,  saying 
that  Antichrist,  of  whose  coming  Christians  had  already  been 
warned,  is  now  come.  This,  moreover,  may  be  clearly  per- 
ceived from  verse  20  s.,  where  the  Apostle  expressly  says, 
that  these  -v^su^o^KJarfxaXoi  had  acknowledged  and  received 
the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion,  but  afterwards  had  ma- 
liciously abandoned  and  abjured  it.  Further,  it  is  evident 
that  those  '\^s\)8oMa(fxa'Koi  were  of  Jewish  origin  ;  for  St.  Pe- 
ter had  addressed  the  Jewish  Christians,  and,  in  tJ.  1,  he  ex- 
pressly shews,  that  now  also,  as  had  before  been  the  case, 
men  of  this  kind  should  arise  from  among  them,  iysvovro  Ss  xai 
4/£u5oflrpo(|)SiTai  iv  rw  Xaw,  ois  xai  iv  CfAM/  etfovraj  ^psudoSiSacfxaKoi.     It 

may  be  added,  finally,  that  learned  writers,  even  among  those 


35S  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

who,  in  other  respects,  most  strenuously  contend  that  traces 
of  the  Gnostics  are  found  in  tlie  New  Testament,  and  espe- 
cially MosHEiM,   maintain  that  the  Gnostics  were  not  all  so 
depraved  in  their  opinions  and  lives,  as  the  ^f  su^o^i^aCxaXoi  are 
here  described.     Comp.  Mosiieim,  Institut.    H.   E.   maj.  p. 
359,  where  he  observes,  that  "  most  of  them  prescribed  for 
themselves  a  severe  rule  of  living,  and,  by  abstinence,  and 
various  inconveniences,  emaciated  and  tormented  their  bo- 
dies :*'  and,  p.  357  s.,  he  says,  "  they  all  certainly  committed 
to  our  Saviour  the  office  of  informing,  both  by  words  and 
deeds,  the  souls  of  men,  which  had  fallen  into  extreme  igno- 
rance of  their  origin  and  condition,  and   were  forgetful  of 
God,  how  they  might  escape  from  the  snares  of  the  wicked 
prince  of  darkness  ;  &c."     Semler  expresses  the  same  opi- 
nion, in  his  Comment.  Hist,  de  ant.  Chr.  statu,  p.  79  ;  where 
he  observes,  that  "  most  of  the  Gnostics  were  strict  teachers 
of  virtue."     But  if  this  be  so,  how  can  those  -^^svdodidatfxoikoi 
mean  the  Gnostics  ?     For  this  reason,  Mosheim  here  agrees 
with  me  ;  for  he  expressly  maintains,  in  the  above  work,  p. 
317  s.,  that  this  epistle  does  not  speak  of  philosophers,  nor  of 
those  who  advocated  the  ceremonial  law,  but  of  abandoned 
Christians,  "  who  maintained  that  the  holy  system  of  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  teacher  of  every  vice  and  lust,  and,  by  their 
own  impure  lives,  supported  this  horrible  doctrine." — So 
much  with  respect  to  the  ■]^s\}§o8iSa<fxoikoi. 

As  for  the  phraseology  which  the  Apostle  has  used  in  this 
Chapter,  and  which,  as  has  been  very  correctly  remarked  by 
learned  men,  (as,  for  example,  among  the  ancient  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers,  Jerom,  de  Script.  Eccl.  c.  1,)  differs  very  much 
from  his  style  in  other  parts,  and  has  a  great  resemblance  to 
the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude,  while  this  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Pe- 
ter, and  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude,  resemble  very  much  the 
phraseology  of  the  Gnostics ;  learned  men  seem  to  have  here 
needlessly  sought  out  and  devised  difficulties.  If  it  is  neces- 
sary, however,  to  assign  any  reason  for  the  circumstance  re- 
ferred to,  the  most  probable  is,  that  it  was  in  consequence  of 
the  prophecy,  and  denunciation  of  severe  punishments,  con- 
tained in  this  chapter.  Now  who  does  not  know  that  in  pro- 
phecies, or  severe  reproofs,  the  style  is  more  elevated.,  and 


IN  THE  NEW  tJESTAMENT;  373 

sometimes  also  more  uncommon,  tlian  in  the  simple  statement 
of  doctrines,  and  systems  of  morals  ?  Who  can  read  the 
xivth  chapter  of  Isaiah,  where  the  destruction  of  the  Babylo- 
nians is  threatened,  or  the  reproof  contained  in  Jeremiah,  ii. 
12,  without  perceiving  that  a  very  elevated  style,  and  bold 
figures,  are  used  ?  And  from  this  circumstance  not  having  been 
borne  in  mind  by  some  commentators,  those  passages  have 
been  explained  in  a  most  extraordinary  and  unnatural  manner. 
Or,  to  take  an  example  from  the  New  Testament,  who  can 
read  the  Apocalypse,  and  other  writings  of  St.  John,  without 
observing  the  great  difference  there  is  between  them  ?  In 
the  latter,  the  style  is  simple,  sweet,  and  flowing  softly  along ; 
in  the  former,  it  is  elevated,  magnificent,  and  also,  in  some 
places,  repugnant  to  the  usage  of  the  Greek  language  ;  and 
therefore  abounding  in  faults  of  expression,  not  to  be  found 
in  his  other  writings,  and  such  as  we  should  not  have  expect- 
ed to  find  in  him. 

The  words  themselves,  moreover,  and  phrases,  which  the 
Apostle  has  employed  in  this  prophecy,  are  such  as  may  ea- 
sily be  accounted  for,  and  explained,  from  the  usage  of  the 
sacred  writers,  without  having  any  regard  to  the  trifles  of  the 
Gnostics.  Of  this  kind,  are,  particularly,  the  phrase  (fsipaTg  ^6- 
(pou  Ta^rapwo'aj,  leapiSi^xsv  sis  >:p«V<v  rsrYiprifj^svovg,  in  r.  4  ;  and  ols  o" 
(^ocpos  rov  (fxoTovs  ^k  aJwva  Tsr^^TjTai,  in  v,  17,  and  the  words  im- 
mediately preceding,  outoj  £»Vi  ifriyai  avu^^oi,  vS(psXai  virh  XaiXairog 
iXcfuvoiLsmi.  Some  learned  writers  are  of  opinion,  that  these 
phrases  are  either  derived  from  the  usage  of  the  Gnostics, 
that  is  to  say,  borrowed  from  them,  or  that  they  are  employed 
in  opposition  to  them  ;  as  Michaelis  thinks,  Einleit.  ins.  N. 
T.  P.  n.  p.  1482  s.  ed.  Gott.  1788.*  Let  us,  however,  exa- 
mine this  point.  We  must  here  bear  in  mind,  particularly  as 
it  respects  the  two  first  of  the  above  phrases,  an  observation 
of  some  very  learned  commentators  in  regard  to  certain  words, 
which  are  somewhat  uncommon  in  the  New  Testament.  When 
the  Apostles  undertook  to  teach  the  Christian  religion  in  the 
Greek  language,  many  subjects  were  necessary  to  be  spoken 

*  [  See  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol,  iv.  pp.  356,  356.  Lond.  1802.— Tr.  ] 


374  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

of,  with  which  the  Gentiles  were  unacquainted,  or  which,  at 
any  rate,  they  erroneously  held  ;  so  that  there  were  no  words 
to  express  these  :  as,  for  example,  when  the  punishments  of 
evil  angels  and  men  were  to  be  mentioned.  In  order  to  ex- 
press these,  they  were  obliged  either  to  invent  new  words,  or 
to  select  others,  whose  ordinary  signification  had  some  resem- 
blance to  that  which  they  wished  to  express.  New  terms  they 
neither  did,  nor  could  invent ;  for  this  is  only  to  be  expected 
from  great  genius,  disciplined  by  education,  not  from  fisher- 
men and  illiterate  persons  :  they  accordingly  selected  words, 
which  were  already  well  known,  and  employed  on  similar 
subjects.  Thus,  for  example,  they  made  choice  of  the  word 
a%,  which  is  used  by  the  Greeks  in  reference  to  the  condi- 
tion of  both  classes  of  men  after  death  :  the  Apostles,  how- 
ever, after  the  usage  of  the  Septuagint,  which  employs  this 
word  to  express  the  Hebrew  terms  h)H^  and  npSv,  added  ano- 
ther signification  ;  using  it,  viz.  with  reference  to  the  wicked 
only,  and  expressing  by  it  their  utterly  miserable  condition. 
But  as  this  condition  is  frequently  represented,  in  other  pla- 
ces, by  the  word  *  darkness,'  ?o(po^,  they  employed  this  like- 
wise to  express  the  same  meaning  ;  and  added  to  it  the  word 
(fsipa,  instead  of  which,  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  xvii.  17,  the 
word  aXutfig  is  used,  to  signify  the  constraint,  severity,  and 
long  duration  of  these  punishments  (for  chains,  and  bonds, 
are  used  by  the  poets  to  express  extreme  constraint,).  And 
as  Tartarus  signifies,  with  the  Greeks  and  Latins,  a  dark  and 
low  place,  where  the  wicked  are  tormented,  they  according- 
ly employed  the  w^ord  rapTap'jc^,  entirely  divested,  however, 
like  the  rest  of  the  terms  now  referred  to,  of  the  supersti- 
tious meaning  attached  to  it  by  the  heathen ;  and  signifying, 
to  subject  to  the  severest  punishments  which  a  spiritual  nature 
can  suffer.  Now  as  it  was  no  less  difficult  to  select  these 
words,  so  as  to  suit  the  comprehension  of  men,  than  to  invent 
new  ones,  it  is  evident  that  they  were  suggested  not  by  the 
genius  of  the  writers,  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit  himself;  and 
this  is  certainly  a  strong  argument  for  the  idea,  that  words 
themselves  were  communicated  by  divine  inspiration.  On 
the  signific^ition  of  those  terms  among  the  Greeks,  see,  be- 


IN  THK  NEW  TtSTAMENT.  375 

sides  Grot  I  us,  Bos,  Exercitatt.  Phil,  on  this  place,  p.  285  ;  on 
Jude,  V.  6,  p.  293,  and  Apoc.  i.  18,  p.  295.  There  is,  more- 
over, some  ground  for  the  use  of  these  words,  in  that  ancient 
opinion  of  the  Eastern  nations,  that  the  souls  of  the  dead 
pass  into  a  dark  and  low  place,  where  there  is  night  and  drea- 
ry solitude,  and  where  past  things  are  forgotten.  This  they 
called  by  the  names,  biN^'j^,  niDSv,  in,  px  \n3T,  n;pn,  i\m,  &c. ; 
and  the  Greeks  called  it  aSrig,  or  ra^prapog.  Hence,  in  explain- 
ing passages  of  Scripture,  it  is  necessary  to  be  somewhat  cau- 
tious ;  and  even  in  interpreting  Greek  words,  which  have  the 
same  meaning,  we  must  sometimes  have  recourse  to  this  an- 
cient opinion,  if  we  would  arrive  at  their  exact  signification. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  that  eminent  critic  Vitringa,  on  Isai. 
xiv.  9  ;  and  has  been  farther  illustrated  by  Venema,  on  Ps. 
VI.  6,  XVI.  10,  who  has  cited  a  great  number  of  passages  to 
establish  the  point.  Everard  Scheid  has  also  discussed  the 
subject  at  large,  and  in  a  learned  manner,  in  his  Diss,  ad  Cant. 
Hiskiae,  p.  27 — 43.  And  if  ancient  and  modern  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers  had  borne  all  this  in  mind,  they  certainly  would 
not  have  looked  in  this  place  for  the  Gnostics  ;  who  perhaps 
used  words  of  this  sort  on  account  of  the  usage  of  the  Greeks 
and  Latins,  who  held  nearly  the  same  opinion,  and  used  them 
in  a  Greek  and  liatin  sense.  Neither,  which  is  more  impor- 
tant, and  applies  chiefly  to  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers, 
would  they  have  philosophized  in  so  trifling  a  manner  about 
the  condition  of  souls  after  death,  and  even  respecting  the 
descent  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  into  the  lower  world. 

As  for  the  phrases,yii7a«  avu(5poi,  and  vscpiKai  ■j<ro  "kaiXaifog  sXauvo- 
fAsva*,  V.  17,  these  also  are  not  entirely  unknown  in  the  sacred 
writings  ;  the  former  signifying  imperfection  of  doctrine,  the 
latter  inconstancy  in  the  faith.  For  example,  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  9, 
pious  men  are  said  to  be  completely  satisfied  with  the  fatness  of 
the  house  of  God,  and  to  be  rather  overflowed,  than  watered, 
with  the  sweetest  rivers  of  pleasures  ;  i.  e.  to  be  enriched  by 
God,  here  below,  with  the  most  choice  and  excellent  gifts, 
productive  of  the  greatest  delight ;  for  this  is  the  meaning  of 
that  very  beautiful  passage.  And,  on  account  of  this  plenty 
and  abundance  of  spiritual  blessings,  they  are  compared  to  a 


376 


NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 


perpetual  and  most  copious  fountain ;  as,  in  Isai.  lviii.  U, 
rn\9  i3o;-kS  w  d;d  J<jiDp,  us  ir'nyri,  -^v  ju.ii  i^iXiirsv  v8up ;  that 
is,  thou  shalt  be  like  a  fountain,  which  emits  water  continually, 
without  cessation,  i.  e.  a  very  abundant  fountain  ;  by  which 
phrase  is  expressed  the  exceedingly  happy  condition  of  the 
pious  and  faithful.     So  also,  in  Zechariah,  xiv.  8,  it  is  said 
that  out  of  Jerusalem,  i.  e.  the  church  of  Christ,  shall  flow  D;p 
D^^n,  living  waters ;  which  is  to  be  understood  not  literally, 
as  Grotius  thinks,  but  as  referring  to  the  successful  propaga- 
tion of  the  gospel.     To  the  above  place  in  Isaiah  Jesus  Christ 
seems  to  have  had  reference,  in  John,  iv.  14  ;  but  especially 
in  Ch.  VI  h  38,  where  he  thus  describes  the  happiness  of  a 
pious  man:  *orajxo<  h  tris  xoiXi'ag  aurow  (which,  according   to 
the  Hebrew  usage,  is  for  s^  auTou)  ^suCoutfiv  u^arof;  ^dvros,  which, 
laying  aside  the  allegory,  means  nothing  else  but  this ;  "  he 
shall  be  filled  with  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  with  a  great 
abundance  of  divine  knowledge,  tranquillity,  joy,  &c."     See 
Rev.  XXI.  6.     And  therefore  God  himself,  from  whom  all 
these  benefits  proceed,  is  called  in  Ps.  xxxvi.  10,  D':n  -^ipp, 
'rTYiyri  ?w»i?,  and  in  Jer.  ii.  13,  and  xvii.  13,  D^n  D^D  mpp  ;  they 
who  cease  to  worship  and  reverence  Him  being  said  to  leave 
the  exhaustless  fountain,  and  to  hew  out  for  themselves  broken 
wells,  D'"]3K'J  ^'^ii^,  which  cannot  hold  water,  and  are  there- 
fore altogether  destitute  of  it.     Hence  the  mouth  and  law  of 
a  wise  man,  i.  e.  his  doctrine,  are  called,  in  Prov.  x.  11,  and 
xiu.  14,  D'^Ti  ^ipp,  because  this  doctrine  leads  to  true  happi- 
ness ;  as  appears  from  what  follows ;  "  by  obeying  which, 
you  will  avoid  all  danger :"  and  for  this  same  reason,  piety 
towards  God  receives  the  same  appellation,  in  ch.  xiv.  27. 
Now  it  may  hence  be  perceived,  why  wicked  teachers  are 
here  called  by  the  Apostle  'Jtr.yai   awdpoi  ;  namely,  because 
they  themselves  are  destitute  of  those  divine  gifts,  and  cannot, 
therefore,  lead  others  to  their  attainment.   This  is  shewn  clear- 
ly by  the  parallel  passage,  Jude,  verse  12,  where  they  are 
called  Scvdpa  cp'^mitupiva,  trees  that  are  decaying,  or,  destitute 
of  leaves,  (referring,  without  doubt,  to  Ps.  i,  3.)  axap«ra,  dig 
dieo^avovra,  entirely  dead  and  dried  up,  so  that  there  is  no  hope 
of  their  reviving,  (for  to  die  twice,  means,  to  suffer  a  more 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  377 

bitter  death ;  as  in  that  celebrated  passage  of  Phsedrus,  "  bfe 
vidcor  mori,")  ^xpi^w&svra,  fit  to  be  burned, — But  these  teach- 
ers are  further  called  v£9sXai  o-jto  XaiXa-roj  JXauvo'/xsvai,  i.  e, 
clouds,  which  are  swiftly  carried  along  by  a  wind,  or  tempest. 
Commentators  differ  in  regard  to  the  reason  for  this  appella- 
tion. Some  are  of  opinion,  that  they  are  so  called  on  the 
same  account  for  which  they  are  termed  '^'nyal  awSpoi ;  others, 
however,  think  that  it  is  because  of  their  pride,  and  vain  boast 
of  knowledge  (yvwCig),  as  Michaelis,  Einl.  ins  N.  T.  P.  ir. 
p.  1483.  Ed.  Gott.  1788.*  Forsooth,  because  the  Apostle 
speaks  of  the  Gnostics  in  this  chapter  !  But  it  has  been  al- 
ready observed  by  Grotius,  and  Calovius  agrees  with  hira, 
(Bib.  111.  on  this  place,)  that  those  teachers  are  so  called  on 
account  of  the  wavering  character  of  their  faith  ;  and  this  is 
not  only  clearly  proved,  but  absolutely  required,  by  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  discourse.  For  what  the  Apostle  had  first  said 
figuratively,  he  unfolds  more  clearly  and  without  a  figure,  in 
V,  20,  21 ;  and  who  else  can  be  there  meant,  but  those  who, 
having  abandoned  tjie  Christian  faith,  have  turned  back  again 
to  their  former  wickedness  ?  To  this  agree  the  parallel 
passages,  Eph.  iv.  14,  where  the  Apostle  admonishes  them 
not  to  be  like  children,  tossed  and  driven  about  by  every  w^ind 
of  doctrine,  xXu^wvi^ofxsvoj  xa<  -rs^jips^oixsvot  '^avri  avi^kui  Tr}S  6ida<f^ 
xaXias  ;  intending  hereby,  without  doubt,  to  warn  them  against 
inconstancy  in  doctrine  and  faith :  and  Hebrews,  xiii.  9, 
where  he  says,  SiSa-xa-Ts  -jroixiXaig  xc/J  ^imig  jxtj  <ffs^Kpi^s(f&Sj  i.  e. 
do  not  permit  yourselves  to  be  carried  and  tossed  about  by 
various  and  novel  opinions.  Moreover,  the  -^^sudoSidatfxakot,  of 
whom  St.  Peter  speaks,  are  called  by  the  Apostle  Jude,  v.  12, 
vs^psXai  ucro  ctvs'fxwv  ^ffs^Kps^o^svai ;  and  v.  13,  d(fTs^S5  crXav^rar, 
which  Grotius  well  renders,  wandering,  or  flitting  stars ;  and 
says  that  their  inconstancy  is  here  meant.  James,  i.  6,  is  also 
a  passage  somewhat  applicable  to  the  illustration  of  the  phrase 
under  discussion.  There  is,  therefore,  no  necessity  for  re- 
ferring this  chapter  to  the  Gnostics  ;  and  it  is  plain,  tfiat  the 


*<  C  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol.  iv.  p.  365.  Lpnd,  1802.— Tr.  J 
48 


378  wo  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

words  themselves  which  the  Apostle  uses,  and  the  whole  dis- 
course, are  sufficiently  to  be  accounted  for  from  the  nature 
of  the  Greek  language,  and  the  usage  of  the  other  sacred  wri- 
ters; 

On  Chapter  m,  of  ii.  Peter,  there  cannot  be  much  said ; 
as  even  those  learned  writers  who  are  most  firmly  of  opinion, 
that  there  are  traces  of  the  Gnostic  philosophy  in  the  New 
Testament,  differ  in  the  explanation  of  it :  some  asserting, 
but  the  greater  part  denying,  that  it  is  also  referred  to  in  this 
place.  It  may  be  sufficient  to  state,  that  this  chapter  cannot 
refer  to  any  other  advent  of  Christ,  than  that  to  the  last 
judgment;  as  has  been  very  clearly  shewn  by  several  learn- 
ed writers,  and  as  Michaelis  himself  thinks,  1.  c.  There  is 
no  necessity,  however,  for  supposing,  that  by  the  lii^ieaTxrai, 
whom  he  predicts  as  hereafter  (i-^'  £V;)^aTou  twv  tj/xs^wv)  to  arise, 
are  meant  the  Gnostics  ;  since  at  all  periods  impudent  men 
of  this  kind,  who  have  derided  the  divine  promises  and 
threatenings,  have  existed  in  gi-eat  numbers.  Such  persons, 
for  instance,  were  found  in  the  days  of  Noah  ;  and  of  Mala- 
chi,  who  speaks  of  them  in  Ch.  m.  Will  any  one  say  that 
these  were  Gnostics  ?  * 

Something  yet  remains  to  be  said,  (that  I  may  not  be 
thought  to  have  left  untouched  any  thing  of  importance,)  in 
regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  6  aim  and  6  ap^wv,  Eph. 
n.  2  ;  which  some  learned  writers,  particularly  Brucker,  on 
this  passage,  and  Mosheim,  on  i.  Tim.  i.  17,  suppose,  with 
Jerom,  to  be  used  in  the  Gnostic  sense  in  the  sacred  writings, 
and  to  refer  to  a  certain  eternal,  unchangeable  Substance,  and 
Spirit  of  the  first  rank,  or  prince  of  spirits.  They  appear  to 
have  been  led  to  this  idea,  however,  by  the  signification  of 
eternity,  which  is  supposed  to  be  contained  in  the  word  alav, 
and  of  chief  power,  thought  to  be  comprehended  in  the  term 
op^wv.  Neither  the  one,  nor  the  other,  however,  can  be 
proved  either  from  the  usage  of  the  Bible,  or  that  of  the  best 
writers. 

The  word  a«wv  answers  exactly  to  the  Hebrew  oSt;;,  which, 
by  its  derivation,  and  the  constant  usage  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ings, means  time,  tlie  end  of  which  is  concealed  from  us  ; 


ffrr  %rr  "'^»«"'^/ 

IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENl'.   I(  ^  *^*V]^f^<*  T  m  . 

or  any  space  of  time  whatever,  the  length  of  TiF^^^SjJ'i^^aljie      n^. 
determined,  in  each  particular  passage,  by  the  cdnteift,STid        -^ 
the  design  of  the  writer.     It  may  therefore,  indeed,  signify  a 
somewhat  extended  period,  and  even  the  highest  extent  of 
duration  :    for  example,   in    that  phrase,  oSi^-ni;  ti^'i^Dt  or 
D^rphiy^,  Ps.  xc.  2,   cui.  17 ;  in  Greek,  cc-tto  tcu  a/wvos  h)s  tou 
ctjwva^,  or,  sig  tovs  a/wvag  rwv  aiwvwv,  i.  e.  as  long  as  possible,  or, 
for  ever ;  Gen.  xxi.  33,  dSi;;  S«,  which  is  well  rendered  by  the 
Septuagint,  Gsog  a/wvio^.  From  the  term  by  itself,  however,  we 
cannot  prove  the  eternity  of  any  thing ;  as  appears  plainly  both 
from  the  Chaldee,  as  Esra,  iv.  15.  Dan.  n.  4.  ^:.n  ppS^rS  fc{2i,p, 
and  also  from  other  places,  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  men- 
tion.   A  clear  example  is  to  be  found,  however,  in  Exod. 
XXI.  6,  where  the  servant  who  does  not  wish,  in  the  seventh 
year  of  his  service,  to  embrace  the  privilege  of  freedom,  is 
said  to  continue  a  servant  d'7i;;S,  i.  e.  till  the  time  of  the  year 
of  jubilee,  or,  as  long  as  he  lives.    Deut.  xv.  17.    Those 
places  are  principally  to  be  borne  in  mind,  in  which  n^?  is  add- 
ed ;   as,  Isai.  xlv.  17,  i})  ^rhiyipj  ?w5  f<^^  a»wvos  sVi,  a  salvation 
to  endure  for  a  very  long  period.     Hence   the  D'pSi;^   of  the 
Hebrews  are  distinguished  by  them  into  njn  dSij;  and  Njn  u^ip : 
on  which  account  cclm  or  ccluvsg  are  used,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  reference  to  the  N.  T.  times,  if  6  (x^XXwv  is  added, 
or  oS  lp-xpit.sm ;  as  Heb.  n.  5,  where,  indeed,  the  words  are 
oixouftsvr]  fji.lXXoufl'a,  in  the  same  sense,  however,  in  which  the 
phrase  aJwv  fxsXXwv  is  used  in  Ch.  vi.  5  ;  and  ^uvaf^sig  fAiXXovro? 
alutog  means,  the  power  of  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  is  expressly  termed,  in  Rom.  i.  16,  6vmii.ig  esQv\ 
and  in  Eph.  i.  19,  vifsp^aXkav  fjisysS-oj  Trig  ^uva/xswj.    In  the  same 
way  we  are  to  understand  a'iuvsg  ^p-^piism,  in  Ch.  n.  7,  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.     Hence  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is 
called,  in  Isai.  ix.  5,  n^'^^*  i*  e.  the  founder  of  the  future  age ; 
where  the  Septuagint  has  crari^f  tou   fAs'XXovToc:  atCivog.     The 
same   meaning  is  assigned  by  Locke  and   Michaelis   to 
Gal.  1.  4  ;  so  that  the  phrase  aiwv  hsdrag  signifies  the  times 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  refers  to  freedom   from  the 
yoke  of  the  ceremonial  law.      To  this,  however,  seem  to 
be   opposed  the    words    tou    ^ovtoj    lauTov     vifBf  twv    a^a^^mv 


380  n6  Graces  op  the  Gilostics 

7jjui,wv,  which  clearly  shew  that  the  expression  oVwj  i^sXr^Tm 
«Jj/xag  h  TOO  ^vsrfTWToj  aiwvog  <:eovY\po\)  means  somewhat  more  than 
deliverance  from  the  ritual  law. — Now  from  this  signification 
is  derived  another  ;  that,  namely,  by  which  a/wv,  and  aldvzg^ 
al^ij;  and  D'dSij?,  denote  time  and  the  world  itself;  as  Joel,  ii. 
2,  where  DSi)rri-|D  means,  *  at  any  time,'  or,  *  ever  :*  Eccles.  ni. 
ll,  where  the  Septuagint  has  translated  word  for  word,  tov 
aiQva  Uuxsv  iv  xapdia  auTwv,  but  the  English  Version  more  ac- 
cording to  the  sense,  "  he  hath  set  the  world  in  their  heart  :" 
Heb.  I.  2,  XI.  3,  which  passages  are  in  point,  and  ought  not 
to  be  thought  to  refer  to  the  aeons  of  the  Gnostics  :  for  they 
are  a  mere  Hebraism,  expressing  the  formation  of  the  world, 
as  they  have  been  hitherto  universally  understood.  Hence 
DSi;;p  and  a-zf'  a'/wvo?  mean,  from  the  foundation  of  the  world  ; 
Gen.  VI.  4,  Luke,  i.  70,  John,  ix.  32  :  and  'jfpo  tC^v  a/wvwv,  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  ;  i.  Cor.  n.  7,  Moreover,  as  eve- 
ly  period  of  time  has  its  peculiar  manners,  vices,  pursuits, 
and  dispositions  ;  hence  dSi;;,  or  also  mn,  ai'wv,  and  ysvsa,  are 
used  in  reference  both  to  the  manner  of  life  and  conduct  of 
any  one,  as  Gen.  vi.  9.  Luke  xvi.  8,  which  the  Hebrews  other- 
wise express  by  the  term  ^nn  ;  and  also  to  the  manners,  dis- 
positions, and  feelings,  which  distinguish  any  particular  a/'wv, 
or  ysvsa.  The  Latins  use  the  word  cetas,  or  seculum,  in  the 
same  way ;  as,  in  Pliny,  "  seculum  est,  pecuniam  amare  ;" 
and  Tacitus,  Germania,  19,  "  nemo  enim  ilhc  vitia  ridet,  nee 
corrumpere  et  corrumpi,  seculum  vocatur."  The  French  use 
the  word  siecle  precisely  in  the  same  way.  See  Wolfius, 
and  the  citations  there  made.  A  place  in  point  here,  is  Rom. 
xn.  2  ;  where  the  Apostle  says,  (xii  (fv(tx'»^iiaTi^sifk  tuj  alC)vi  ro\j- 
T^,  i.  e.  do  not  imitate  the  present  age,  i.  e.  the  corrupt  man- 
ners of  this  age.  Therefore  the  words  itspis'jrarrj(fars  xara  Hv 
etj'wva  Tou  xotffxou  tovtov,  in  this  passage  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  which  I  have  been  endeavoring  to  explain,  cannot 
possibly  refer  to  a  certain  nature  ;  but,  as  we  have  seen,  to 
the  manners  and  habits  of  the  men  of  that  period,  who  re- 
j^isted  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  delivered  with 
su«h  abundant  clearness,  and  confirmed  by  so  many  and  sig- 
nal miracles.     I  would  therefore  translate  the  place  thus  : 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  381 

"  to  whicli  crimes  ye  also  were  sometime  abandoned,  after  the 
manner  of  tliis  period,"  or,  "  as  men  are  wont  to  live  in  this 
our  age."  Grotius  has  admirably  rendered  it  ;  "  vixistis,  lit 
mos  erat  plerisque." 

Neither  are  we  to  imagine  the  idea  of  any  great  and  dis- 
tinguished power,  to  be  implied  in  the  word  a^wv.  For,  as 
Ernesti  observes,  Instit.  Interp.  p.  217,*  he  who  possesses 
d§xn,  i.  e.  any  power  and  dignity,  though  small,  such  as  be- 
longs to  the  lesser  judges  in  particular  towns,  is  called  a^wv^ 
For  every  town  in  Judea,  however  small,  had,  like  us,  its  %- 
X0VT5J,  i.  e.  magistrates,  or  judges,  who  took  cognizance  of 
lesser  causes,  determined  suits  and  controversies,  and  con- 
sulted the  advantage  and  security  of  their  countrymen.  On 
the  subject  of  these  Archons  of  the  Jews,  Wesseling  has 
written  an  entire  treatise,  to  which  I  would  refer  the  reader. 
It  is  a  person  of  this  kind  that  is  meant  in  Luke  xii.  58  ;  and, 
as  Grotius  has  already  observed,  he  is  expressly  termed  x^iT^jg 
in  the  parallel  passage.  Matt.  v.  25.  Such  also  was  Jairus, 
who,  in  Matt.  ix.  18,  is  called  afX"^,  and  in  Luke,  vm.  41,  %- 
^wv  <rris  (fvvoLyuyrjs  :  compare  Markland,  in  his  Notes  on  Ly- 
sias.t  In  the  same  way  Nicodemus,  who,  in  John,  in.  10,  is 
called  SiSa(fxakog  tov  'l(f^a'o\  is  termed  in  v,  1,  of  the  same 
chapter,  a^X"^  twv  'lou^ajwv ;  in  which  place,  as  Brucker  like- 
wise has  observed,  bringing  forward,  at  the  same  time,  other 
passages  in  proof  of  this  signification,  a  person  is  meant,  who 
has  any  power  whatever  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  or,  a  public 
teacher.  And  this  is  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  use  of  the 
word  by  the  Septuagint,  from  which,  without  doubt,  this  sense 
of  ci^X'^v  with  the  New^  Testament  writers  was  derived.  For 
in  that  version,  this  word  is  used  to  render  the  Hebrew  liy, 
Exod.  u.  14,  and  pn^,  Isai.  xxii.  18,  which,  particularly  in  the 
Chaldee,  signifies  any  possessor  and  lord.  Nor,  finally,  is  it 
repugnant  to  the  usage  of  the  best  writers,  who  employ  a^wv 
in  no  less  simple  a  manner.    Whence  it  is  evident,  that  there 


*  C  Page  413,  Ed.  Lips.  1809.— Tr.  ] 

+  [  Lys.  Oper.  p.  533,  Ed.  Reiske,  Lips.  1772.— Tr.  ] 


382  NO  TRACES  or  TUE  GNOSTICS 

is  no  necessity  for  understanding  by  a^x'^^v  c^j?  i|ourfia^  rou  ds^o^, 
a  spirit  of  the  first  rank,  or  the  prince  of  spirits,  or  any  thing 
of  that  kind  :  but  he  designates  by  this  phrase  one  who  pos- 
sesses any  power  whatsoever  ;  by  which,  however,  I  would 
not  be  understood  as  taking  from  the  devil,  who,  I  doubt  not, 
is  here  meanf,  all  the  power  that  is  attributed  to  him  in  other 
places  also  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  that  is  here  ascribed 
to  him  by  the  expression,  t%  i^ovceias  <rou  ds^og^  who  exercises 
power  in  darkness,  i.  e.  among  wicked  men.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  must  beware  here  of  the  absurdity  of  those  who 
philosophize,  to  an  extraordinary  degree,  about  the  power  of 
the  devil  over  the  air,  and  miserably  confuse  themselves  in 
the  explanation  of  it ;  as  Wolfius,  and  those  whom  he  cites, 
and,  which  much  surprises  me,  even  Grotius.  Into  which 
error  they  would  not  have  fallen,  if  they  had  attended  to  the 
use  of  the  word  d^j^  by  all  the  best  Greek  and  liatin  writers, 
and  particularly  the  poets  ;  in  the  sense,  namely,  of  dark- 
ness and  obscurity.  For  example,  in  that  celebrated  passage 
of  Virgil's  Aeneid,  i.  v.  415, 

Venus  obscuro  gradientes  a6re  sepsit. 

So  also  in  the  sacred  writings,  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  xvu. 
10,  the  Egyptian  darkness  is  called  d^^.  There  is  no  necessity, 
however,  for  citing  examples,  since  they  are  easy  of  access, 
and  this  use  of  d»j^  is  so  well  known  and  understood,  and  has 
been  so  established  by  learned  writers,  that  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  it  obtains  in  this  place  also.  This  is  evident  parti- 
cularly from  the  fact,  that  the  Apostle,  as  Luther,  in  his  Ger- 
man version,  has  pretty  clearly  intimated,  immediately  him- 
self adds  an  explanation  in  the  words  that  follow,  viz. :  tou 
crvaOixaToj  <rou  vuv  ivs^ymvrog  sv  roTs  vhTg  rr,s  cMfsi^Biag^  i.  e.  that 
spirit  namelify  who  now  particularly  displays  his  efficacy  among 
unbelievers.*     Whence  it  is  evident,  that  d^|  does  not  inean 


*  [  Luther's  translation  of  the  verse  is  as  follows :  "  In  welchen  ihr 
weiland  gewandelt  habt,  nach  dem  Lauf  dieser  Welt,  und  nach  dem 
FQrsten,  der  in  der  Luft  herrschet ;  nemlich  nach  dem  Geist,  der  zu 
dieser  Zeit  sein  Werk  hat  in  den  kindern  des  Unglaubens."— Tr.  ] 


KN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  383 

the  air,  for  the  ah*  belongs  to  God,  not  to  the  devil ;  but  dark- 
ness, i.  e.  vUt  Trig  dirsiB-stas,  for  in  the  parallel  place,  Ch.  vi. 
12,  and  Col.  i.  13,  the  Apostle  uses  the  word  tfxoVo^ ;  but  all 
know  that  CxoVo?  signifies  ignorance,  vice,  misery. — But  the 
devil  is  called  a^wv  tou  di^og,  or,  rov  tfxorou^,  i.  e.  of  the  wick- 
ed, since  he  exerts  his  power  among  them,  and  by  them ; 
and  this  power,  moreover,  is  not  inconsiderable,  not  indeed 
on  account  of  the  word  afX"">  <^i'  ^outfi'a,  but  because  of  the 
multitude  of  wicked  men,  who  are  the  instruments  whereby 
the  devil  exercises  his  power.  This  explanation  is  so  clear, 
and  agrees  so  well  with  the  usage  both  of  the  best  writers,  and 
of  the  sacred  books  themselves,  and  with  the  connexion  of  the 
whole  discourse,  that  I  cannot  understand  how  Brucker 
could  call  it  forced.  Hist.  Crit.  Phil.  Tom.  vi.  p.  417  s. ;  nor 
how  those  remarks  can  be  considered  as  having  any  weight, 
which  he  has  made  against  it,  in  the  Caten.  Exeget.  Bibl.  An- 
glic. Tom.  iv.  N.  T.  p.  828,  and  Tom.  vi.  p.  62.  Moreover,  the 
words  af^a/,  e^outfj'ai,  xotf/xox^aro^sg  rou  Cxotou^  tou  aj'wvo^  <rou-rou,  and 
osufxaTixot  Trig  flrovrj^ioj,  in  this  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  Ch.  vi. 
12,  and  in  Coloss.  n.  15,  are  explained  by  most  commentators 
in  reference  to  the  devil ;  by  some  also,  with  much  less  pro- 
bability, as  meaning  Jupiter,  and  the  gods  of  the  Gentiles, 
which  is  the  opinion  of  Harwood,  in  his  "  New  Introduction 
to  the  study  and  knowledge  of  the  New  Testament,"  p.  303  s. 
The  most  learned  critics,  however,  explain  them  far  differ- 
ently, and  are  of  opinion  that  the  Jewish  rulers,  and  men  yi 
authority  are  intended.  This  they  prove  very  clearly,  Jlrsi, 
from  the  context ;  for,  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  there 
is  an  opposition  between  weak  men  (for  this  is  the  meaning, 
in  that  place,  of  aT/jt-a  xa;  tfa/ig,),*  and  dpx^'h  s^ourfjaJ,  xa;  xotfjuiox^a- 
7oPsg  TOU  (fxoVou^  TOU  aJuivog  <rourou,  i.  e.  the  powerful  men  of  that 
period,  who  were  also  distinguished  for  their  wickedness ;  and 


*  [  The  reader  will  at  once  perceive,  that  the  author  has  departed 
from  the  correct  and  natural  interpretation  of  the  phrase  eiT/xst  kai  <7«'/>|, 
in  this  passage ;  which  signifies  here,  as  in  several  other  places,  men, 
and  is  opposed  to  spiritual  enemies,  or  demons.  See  some  excellent  re- 
marks in  KopPE,  N.  T.  in  loc— Tr.  ] 


384  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  the  discourse,  as  we  have  al- 
ready seen,  is  respecting  the  abolition  of  the  ceremonial  law, 
a  subject  which  certainly  can  have  no  reference  to  the  devil : 
and  secondly,  from  the  usage  of  speech  both  of  the  Jews,  who 
usually  distinguished  by  these  appellations  men  of  influence, 
kings,  and  princes,  and  also  of  the  sacred  writings  themselves. 
For,  in  Acts,  iv.  23,  and  26  s.,  oi^xH^'^^  ""'  °*  -jr^stf^i^Ts^oi,  the  chief 
priests  and  elders,  and  also  those  who  are  afterwards  mention- 
ed by  name,  'H^w5»)f,  IIovtios  n»XaTo^,  Cuv  g^vgCi  xod  XaoTs  'Itf^aiiX, 
are  called  ^adikBlg  r7}g  7%  xal  a^x^vrss.  And  in  1.  Cor.  u.  6,  St. 
Paul  says,  that  he  had  delivered,  indeed,  wisdom  to  the  Chris- 
tians, but  not  of  that  kind  which  was  possessed,  extolled, 
and  set  forth,  by  the  a^ovrsg  tou  aldvog  toutou,  by  whom  are 
meant,  undoubtedly,  the  rulers  of  the  Jews;  for  he  adds,  <rwv 
xara^youfxsvwv,  as  before,  in  Ch.  1.  19,  he  had  said,  that  they 
were  brought  to  nought  by  God.  Of  the  number  of  these 
was  Nicodemus,  and  he  is  expressly  called,  in  John,  11 1.  1, 
a^c»r;  twv  'Iou(5a»wv,  as  we  have  already  seen.  Precisely  in  the 
same  sense,  St.  Paul,  in  1.  Cor.  xv.  24,  speaks  of  a^x^,  ^ioutfja, 
xoj  66\ja,^i5,  which  Semler,  in  his  paraphrase  of  this  passage, 
explains,  to  my  great  surprise,  of  different  orders  of  demons. 
More  correct  is  the  interpretation  of  Heumann,  who,  with 
Grotius,  considers  the  words  as  denoting  civil  magistrates, 
or  rather,  those  who  have  possessed  power  of  any  kind  in  this 
world,  but  have  abused  it  in  opposition  to  our  liOrd  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  gospel,  and  have  therefore  been  his  enemies  ; 
an  explanation  quite  suitable  to  these  passages  which  we  are 
considering.  Moreover,  to  understand  xoC/jLox^aro^ss  in  a  dif- 
ferent sense,  is  forbidden  by  the  usage  of  the  Greeks,  who 
apply  that  title  only  to  men  in  power.  Compare  Doddwell, 
Diss.  IV.  in  Irenaeum,  §.  38,  p.  369,  and  Deyling,  Diss,  de 
Chirographi  et  Principum  legalium  abolitione,  §,  15. 

These  are  the  principal  places,  in  which  some  learned  wri- 
ters are  unanimously  of  opinion  that  there  are  traces  of  the 
Gnostic  and  Oriental  philosophy  ;  but  in  which  I  have  attempt- 
ed to  shew  that  there  are  none  whatever.  To  adduce  any 
more,  (for  the  multitude  cited  by  some  authors  is  almost  without 
number,)  was  not  my  design^  neither  is  it  at  all  necessary ; 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  385 

since  these  arc  undoubtedly  the  princiipal  passages,  that  can 
appear  in  any  degree  plausible.  I  shall  now  enter  into  a 
brief  discussion  respecting  the  Gnostics  and  their  philosophy, 
wliereby,  perhaps,  some  light  may  be  thrown  upon  what  I 
have  already  said :  and  I  shall  venture  to  offer  my  own  opi- 
nion, such  as  it  is,  in  regard  to  them. 

And  first,  let  us  consider  the  resemblance  of  style,  which 
some  have  thought  they  discovered  between  the  sacred  wri- 
tings, and  the  language  of  the  Gnostics  ;  and  which,  without 
doubt,  gave  rise  to  the  opinion  which  I  have  been  refuting. 
The  fact  itself  I  may  concede,  with  perfect  safety  to  my  own 
opinion :  for  this  is  not  to  be  decided  by  particular  words  or 
phrases,  in  which,  however,  the  whole  similarity  consists ; 
neither  can  it  be  inferred  from  them,  that  the  inspired  writers 
were  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  Gnostic  and  Oriental 
philosophy.  This  is  just  like  saying  that  a  man  possesses  the 
eloquence  of  Cicero,  because  he  has  understood  the  art  of 
attaching  some  of  his  phrases,  like  a  splendid  patch-work,  to 
his  discourse  ;  or  that  St.  Paul  had  read  Philo,  or  Josephus 
derived  advantage  from  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  as  some  sup- 
pose, because  both  these  authors  bear  a  great  resemblance  to 
the  Apostle  !  I  may  allow,  therefore,  without  detriment  to 
my  own  opinion,  that  some  phrases  are  used  by  the  sacred 
writers,  which,  in  regard  to  sound,  appear  to  have  some  re- 
semblance to  the  language  of  the  Gnostics.  But  I  do  not 
think  that  the  reason  of*this  circumstance  is  that  which  is  ad- 
duced by  some  learned  men,  viz.  that  the  Apostles  referred 
to  them :  but  rather  that  it  is  that  which  is  mentioned  by 
Tertullian,  De  praescript.  adv.  hseret. .  c.  38.  and  39,  bj^ 
Iren^us,  respecting  whom  we  shall  see  presently,  and  b)' 
others,  viz.  that  the  Gnostics,  in  order  to  give  a  show  of  truth 
to  their  notions,  alluded  to  different  places  of  the  Apostles, 
and  borrowed  words  from  them,  and  also  the  word  yvuxfis  it- 
self, and  glossed  over  their  own  opinions  with  expressions 
from  the  sacred  Scriptures,  as  impostors  have  always  done, 
and  as  it  is  evidently  the  fact  in  respect  to  the  Koran.  In 
order  to  illustrate  this  more  clearly,  permit  me  to  cite  an 
example  from  the  Valentinian  school,  which  was  almost  the 

49 


386  NO  TI^ACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

chief  of  the  Gnostic  sects  ;  provided  that  the  patience  of  the 
reader  can  endure  the  repetition  of  such  absurdities.     Others 
will  thus  be  enabled  to  participate  with  me  in  the  enjoyment 
of  this  feast,  and  to  judge  more  certainly  as  to  the  correctness 
of  my  opinion.   In  the  highest  heavens,  v-^^it^atfi,  so  trifled  these 
veiy  acute  philosophers,  is  TsXsiog  'Aiwv,  supreme,  invisible, 
eternal,  and  unbegotten  ;  whom  they  called  n^oa^^^j,  n^o-TraTW^, 
and  BC^os.     With  him  is  another  first  cause,  "Evvo»a,  and  ^tyh* 
He  determined  with  himself,  -r^o^aXXsiv,  to  produce  from  him- 
self the  beginning  of  all  things.     He  cast  this  ir^o^okYi,  as  seed, 
into  the  generative  parts  of  2iyii,  who  thence  conceived,  and 
brought  forth  a  son,  very  like  his  father,  ofAoio^  xai  IVoj,  called 
Nou^  and  Movoysvris.    This  parent,  as  it  were,  and  original,  of 
all  things  which  were  afterwards  created,  and,  as  it  were, 
f^o^cpwfl'js  <avToff  Tou  'B'Xii^wfAaTo?,  produced  (^^ou^aXsv)  Aoyoj  and 
Zwi),  from  whom  av^pcj^or  and  ixxX^jC/a  have  their  origin,  but 
Zw^  is  TO  <pwg  Twv  dv^^wfl-wv, — Every  one  immediately  perceives, 
that  these  things  are  derived  from  Ch.  i,  of  St.  John's  gospel. 
Col.  1.  15  s.,  &c. ;  and  Iren^  us  has  expressly  asserted  it,  Lib.  i. 
*  adv.  haeres.'  there  telling  us,  that  the  Valentinians  themselves 
also  referred  to  the  beginning  of  St.  John's  gospel,  and  to 
many  other  places. — Moreover,  this  Nouj,  or  Movoyev^rig,  as  he 
alone  knew  the  if^QitMu^,  wished  to  impart  this  knowledge  to 
the  other  Aeons  also,  but  2iy>),  by  the  desire  of  the  parent, 
prevented  him ;  though,  meanwhile,  the  rest  of  the  Aeons 
secretly  wished  to  know  the  ir^oirdru^. — Here,  again,   allu- 
sion is  evidently  made  to  John,  i.  18,  Osov   ouSsls   sw^ax^, 
y..  T.  X.,  to  fjt<utfr*?P(ov    X^^^^^S    atuvioig  (rgCjyrijxsvov,    Rom.   XVI.  25, 
and   to  a<jroxsx^u]ui<(xsvov    dito  <rwv  a/'wvwv,   Eph.  Ul.  9.    Col.    1.   26. 
— Moreover   they  called  Nou?    by  the   name    'ra^  itoMra^  in 
which  they  undoubtedly  referred  to  Col.  in.  11  ;  and  they 
said  that  Christ  took  pity  on  the   ^v^i^^x^tfij  t%  avw  2o(pia£^, 
wiio   also  was  an  Aeon,  but  out   of  the  nX>j|9Wfjt,a,  and  that 
he  extended  himself  upon  Horus,    or .  ^Tau^o^,    was  slain, 
(dofsxTcivso'^ai)  and  by  his  own  power  produced  a  certain  M-o^- 
(pw«J'ic:,  only,  however,  xar'  ouo'iav,  but  not  xara  yv^rfiv,  and  then 
returned  on  high.     Eph.  n.  14.    Col.  i.  20.     She  then  sought 
r§  *w^,  since  she  had  the  odor  of  a©^a^tfja,  left  her  by  Christ 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


:i8? 


and  the  Holy  Spirit,  inasmuch  as  she  had  not  comprehended 
To  (pwf,  while  it  was  in  the  world. — This  is  an  evident  allusion 
to  John,  1.  5. — Christ  was  unwilling  to  return,  but  sent  Ilaga- 
xXrjTo?,  to  whose  power  the  Father  delivered  all  things,  oVw^ 
£v  avruToL  w'avTa  xtjo'^tj'?  'ra  o^cctol  y.ai  to,  do^aTa,  ©^6vo<,  ©soVyirsg', 
Ku^io'rrjrfff — Col.  1.  16. — Such  is  the  way  in  which  those  fa- 
mous philosophers  discoursed  !  My  readers  will,  without 
doubt,  exclaim  to  themselves, — Here,  infelix  lolium,  et  steri- 
les  dominantur  avenae.  If  any  one  would  become  further 
acquainted  with  these  egregious  trifles,  let  him  consult  Ire- 
NAEus,  I.  c,  and  Tertullian,  adv.  Valentin,  c  7  s.,  or  the 
learned  Semler,  who  has  collected  them  together,  in  his 
Hist.  Dogmat.  fidei,  prefixed  to  Baumgarten's  Polem.  Theo- 
logy, T.  1.  p.  147  s.  Let  it  suffice  to  have  adduced  these  in- 
stances by  way  of  sample,  in  order  to  shew,  that  the  Gnos- 
tics glossed  over  the  wickedness  of  their  impious  and  de- 
testable opinions  with  words  and  phrases  of  sacred  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  that,  for  this  reason,  if  one  or  two  examples  be 
found  in  the  Gnostics  of  any  phrase  common  with  the  in- 
spired writers,  it  is  very  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  they 
were  not  taken  by  the  sacred  authors  from  the  language  of 
the  Gnostics,  but  by  these  latter  from  the  works  of  the  for- 
mer, and  turned  to  an  improper  use.  There  are  some  obser- 
vations of  Brucker,  Tom.  m.  Hist.  Crit.  Philos.  p.  299  g., 
which  deserve  to  be  transferred  to  my  pages.  He  there 
maintains  the  same  opinion  which  I  have  just  stated ;  observ- 
ing, "  let  us  bear  in  mind,  and  well  remember,  that  Valen- 
tine accommodated  this  system  to  the  Scripture  doctrine  of 
Christ ;  and,  perceiving  that  various  attributes  of  the  divine 
Aoyof  are  therein  described,  took  occasion  thence  of  convert- 
ing those  attributes  into  aeons,  and  emanative  natures." 
This  distinguished  man  has  surely  not  been  consistent  with 
himself,  in  maintaining  at  one  time,  as  strenuously  as  possi- 
ble, that  the  New  Testament  writers  oppose  the  Gnostics, 
and  yet  here  expressing  the  opinion,  that  the  Gnostics  accom- 
modated their  opinions  to  the  doctrine  of  the  former,  as  deli- 
vered in  the  sacred  writings. 
Now  from  this  very  example,  which  I  have  cited,  I  think 


388 


NO  TRIAGES  OP    THE  GNOSTICS 


every  one  must  have  perceived  that  which  I  designed,  in  the 
second  place,  to  state ;  viz.  that  the  system  was  so  absurd, 
that  the  Apostles  could  not  deem  it  necessary  to  refute  it ; 
and  so  refined,  that  illiterate  men,  writing  to  illiterate  men, 
could  not  possibly  treat  of  it.     For  not  only  was  the  Gnos- 
tic philosophy  very  difficult  to  be  understood,  but  it  contain- 
ed also  an  innumerable  quantity  of  subtle  trifles,  silly  fables, 
ridiculous  absurdities,  foolish  dreams  and  stories,  (as  Bruck- 
ER  himself  asserts  constantly,  in  his  Diss.  Crit.  de  Caulacau 
Basilidis,  Hist.  Crit.  Phil.  Tom.  vi.  p.  507  s.)   and  unmeaning, 
shocking,  barbarous  expressions,  ixshuovros  xai  ^ra^aXaXovvTos  m 
f^fAttTa,  TO,  iisv  ysXojTi  *e*oi>]iiAsva,  srspcx.  6s  xXau&fAou  gfJtcrXsa,  '  thfe 
words  of  a  drunkard  and  trifler,  some   of  them  ludicrous, 
and  others  full  of  lamentation,'  as  is  the  opinion  of  Efipha- 
Nius,  adv.  haeret  Lib.  i.   haer.  26.     Brucker,  also.   I.e.; 
which,  to  be  comprehended  in  any  degree,  require  an  incre- 
dible] amount   of  labor,   vexation,   and  weariness.      It   can 
scarcely,  therefore,  be  understood,  how  the  Apostles,  entirely 
destitute  of  Greek  learning,  and  particularly  of  the  aids  of 
philosophy,   and  dwelling  upon  one  doctrine,  delivered  by 
their  Master,  and  communicated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and,  at 
other  times,  always  using  both  in  matter  and  in  words  the 
greatest  perspicuity,  in  accommodation  to  the  mass  of  the 
people,  could  have  wasted  their  labor  in  refuting  absurdities 
of  this  kind  ;  and  should  not  rather  have  passed  over,  in  si- 
lent contempt,  the  novel  words  of  that  pretended  wisdom, 
perishing  after  a  while  by  their  very  emptiness,  and  deserv- 
ing pity  rather  than  refutation.     Far  less  can  it  be  conceived, 
how  illiterate  Christians,  unaccustomed  to  those, subtleties, 
and  instructed  in  a  purer  doctrine,  could  have  had  any  desire 
to  become  acquainted  with  a  system  of  that  kind  ;  or,  if 
they  had  made  themselves  acquainted  with  it,   could  have 
been  led  away  by  any  wish  to  profess  it.     Neither  can  it  be 
comprehended,  how  the  more   learned  and   accomplished 
could  have  done  otherwise  than  to  deride  and  explode  this 
wretched  philosophy  ;  (as  Tertulltan  has  done  in  the  whole 
of  the  Book  *  adv.  Valentinianos,')  and  say  to  those  triflers 
what  Balbus  did  to  Velleius,  the  Epicurean,  Cic.  de  Nat.  De- 


IN.THE  VEVr  TESTAMENT.  389 

orum,  11.  29  ;*  '  Salem  istum,  quo  caret  vestra  natio,  irriden- 
dis  nobis  iiolite  consumere ;  et  mehercule,  si  nos  audiatis, 
ne  experiamini  :  non  decet  :  non  datum  est :  non  potestis." 
So  full  of  stupidity,  folly,  and  trifles,  was  the  whole  system ! 
It  is  very  certain,  therefore,  at  least  it  is  highly  probable,  that 
these  subtleties  were  known,  at  most,  only  to  learned  men,  who 
acquired  them  not,  indeed,  for  the  purpose  of  embracing 
them,  but  that  they  might  hold  them  in  abhorrence  ;  but  that 
they  were  in  no  respect  suited  to  the  mass  of  the  people,  who 
were  unacquainted  with  refinements  and  subtleties  of  that 
kind,  and  therefore  were  equally  unknown  to  St.  Peter  and 
the  other  Apostles,  and  to  those  to  whom  they  wrote  ;  and 
that  fishermen  no  more  comprehended  them,  than,  in  our  own 
day,  mechanics,  shoemakers,  and  persons  of  that  class,  un- 
derstand algebraic  or  metaphysical  niceties.  For  even  the 
Apostles  themselves  had  not  come  forth  from  the  schools  of 
the  philosophers,  nor  been  accustomed  to  use  words,  phrases, 
and  sentences,  required  by  these  men  to  express  their  subtle 
distinctions  ;  on  the  contrary,  they  were  all  taken  from  among 
the  common  people,  and  were  unlearned  men,  unacquainted 
with  literature,  av^pwiro;  aypa^jxaToj  xa/  ISiCiTat  :t  (St.  Paul  alone 
excepted  ;  and  he,  too,  was  educated  in  the  schools  of  the 
Pharisees,  not  of  the  Greeks,  and  not  merely  frankly  con- 
fessed, but  joyfully  boasted  of  the  fact,  that  he  was  i<5iwT»jff  rw 
Xo'ywjJ  i.  e.  unacquainted  with  the  art  of  eloquence,  and  with 
human  learning ;)  nor  were  their  instructions  addressed  to 
philosophers,  but  to  an  ignorant  people,  entirely  unable  to 
comprehend  refinements  of  this  description.  But  let  it  be 
granted,  that,  as  some  learned  writers  are  of  opinion,  St.  Paul, 
at  any  rate,  had  some  knowledge  of  these  subjects,  which  he 
may  have  acquired  perhaps  by  hearsay  ;  yet  Brucker  him- 
self expressly  states,  Tom.  iii.  Hist.  Crit.  Phil.  p.  263  s.  that 
*'  it  was  nothing  more  than  superficial,  and  taught  him,  as  it 
were,  by  the  way :"  ("  superficiaria  tantum  et  ug  h  'xapodu  in- 


[  Cicer.  Op.  Vol.  ix.  p.  3676,  Edit,  Gronov.  Lugd.  Bat.  1692.— Tr.  ] 

i  Act3,iv;  13.  t  n.  Cor.  XI.  6. 


d&O  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTtCS 

stituta,")  and  he  shews  that  those  are  greatly  mistaken,  who 
would  place  him  on  the  list  of  pMlosophers  ;  though  C.  G. 
Thalemann,  Diss,  de  doctrina  Pauli  Judaica,  non  Grseca,  p. 
7,  thinks  that  even  Brucker  has  attributed  more  than  was  ne- 
cessary to  St.  Paul.     Be  it,  therefore,  as  I  have  said,  that  the 
Gnostic  philosophy  was  not  altogether  unknown  to  him  :  who 
can  suppose,  I  would  ask,  that  the  Apostle,  in  letters  address- 
ed to  illiterate  persons,  would  have  expressed  himself  so  ob- 
scurely, that  perhaps,  out  of  the  whole  number  of  those  to 
whom  he  wrote,  there  could  scarcely  be  one  who  would  be 
able  to  find  out  the  meaning,  and  in  the  least  degree  to  see 
through  the  fallacies,  and  trifling  refinements,  of  the  Gnostic 
philosophers  ?     In  refuting  a  system  of  such  importance,  as 
this  is  generally  supposed  to  have  been,  they  certainly  ought 
not  to  have  been  so  brief,  or  rather  obscure,  or  to  have  only 
touched  upon  it  with  a  word  here  and  there  ;  but  to  ha\»e 
spoken  more  plainly  and  minutely,  and  explained  the  subject 
more  fully  and  clearly,  in  order  that  every  one  might  perceive, 
as  evidently  as  possible,  the  wickedness  of  the  Gnostic  opi- 
nions, and  the  true  character  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ. 
This  they  were  prevented  from  doing  by  the  niceness  of  the 
subject,  which  could  not  possibly  have  been  comprehended 
by  the  minds  of  the  persons,  whom  they  wished  to  instruct 
in  the  knowledge  of  divine  things  ;  otherwise  they  would  have 
done  a  thing  very  far  from  being  useful  to  men,  and  such  as 
no  wise  person,  much  less    an  apostle,  can  be  thought  to  have 
committed.  It  was  better,  therefore,  and  productive  of  great- 
er utility  to  others,  silently  to  pass  by  these  niceties,  even  if 
the  sacred  writers  understood  them,  than  to  be  writing  what 
could  not  be  understood.  And  for  this  reason,  also,  the  Apos- 
tles, even  if  they  had  ever  so  well  learned,  yet,  in  their  writ- 
ings, have  industriously  avoided  new  words  and  expressions, 
invented  by  the  philosophers,  and  to  be  borne,  perhaps,  in 
the  schools,  but  not  at  all  in  the  instruction  of  the  common 
people  ;  and  also  all  the  elegance  of  the  Greeks,  which  would 
not  have  been  comprehended  by  those  to  whom  they  were 
writing :  but,  on  the  contrary,  have  observed  the  manner  and 
usage  of  the  Hebrews,  that  their  works  might  easily,  and  with- 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  391 

out  need  of  any  explanation,  be  understood  by  all  those  on 
whose  account  principally  they  were  then  written  ;  and  who, 
chiefly  from  the  use  of  the  Septuagint  version,  were  accus- 
tomed to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  discoursing  on  divine  subjects, 
and  to  the  peculiar  forms  of  expression  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage. And  it  is,  and  always  has  been  the  plan  pursued  by 
those,  who  write  not  for  philosophers,  but  for  the  mass  of  the 
people,  (and  such  is  the  object  particularly  of  those,  whose 
aim  is  to  instruct  the  human  race,  and  even  the  lowest  of  man- 
kind, in  the  knowledge  of  divine  things,)  not  merely  to  be  at 
no  pains  in  regard  to  refinement  of  style,  in  using  meanings 
of  words,  opinions,  and  phrases,  taken  from  the  schools  of  the 
philosophers,  but  even  most  studiously  to  shun  and  avoid  them. 
Those  who  do  not  adopt  this  method,  certainly  shew  a  very 
great  ignorance  of  the  art  of  composition  ;  and  are  deserv- 
edly ridiculed. 

That  interpretation,  moreover,  which  finds  the  Gnostics 
in  the  sacred  writings,  though  learned,  indeed,  and  ingenious, 
yet  appears  altogether  too  refined  and  subtle,  and  evinces 
a  certain  labor  in  invention  and  explanation,  which  at  once 
indicates  artifice.  Indeed  it  is  at  times  utterly  astonish- 
ing, how  harshly  every  thing,  that  has  the  least  appearance 
of  probability,  is  made  to  bend  to  the  great  object  of  dis- 
covering traces  of  the  Gnostic  philosophy :  nay,  how  pas- 
sages are  forced  and  perverted,  and  the  inspired  writers 
are  made  to  say  things,  that  never  entered  into  their  mind^, 
and  one  is  obliged  to  confess,  on  many  occasions,  that  the 
interpretation  itself  is  much  more  difficult  to  be  understood 
than  that  which  it  explains.  Now  I  have  always  been  taught 
to  think,  both  by  the  precepts  and  the  example  of  the  most 
distinguished  men,  that  the  highest  excellence  of  a  good  in- 
terpreter is  simplicity  ;  and  that  the  greater  appearance  of 
ease  any  interpretation  possesses,  and  the  more  it  seems  to 
be  of  such  a  kind,  that  it  must  have  presented  itself  sponta- 
neously to  the  mind,  the  more  true  it  may,  generally  speak- 
ing, be  considered.    See  Ernesti,  Instit.  Interpret.  N.  T. 


392 


NO  TRACES  0¥  THE  GNOSTICS 


jj.  78.* — Whoever  thinks,  therefore,  that  there  are  traces  of 
the  Gnostics  in  the  passages  to  which  I  have  referred,  and 
also  in  other  places,  appears  to  give  an  interpretation  of  too 
refined  a  nature,  and  to  bring  forward  a  forced  and  labored 
explanation ;  w^hich,  the  greater  appearance  of  learning  it 
carries  before  it,  the  more  its  truth  ought  to  be  suspected. 

Fiually,  a  strong  presumption  against  this  method  of  in- 
terpretation is  to  be  found  in  the  circumstance,  that,  in  the 
explanation  of  certain  passages,  the  Gnostics  are  frequently 
described  as  having  held  some  opinion,  which  they  cannot  be 
proved  to  have  maintained  by  any  historical  evidence. 
Those,  accordingly,  who  maintain  that  there  are  traces  of  the 
Gnostic  philosophy  in  the  New  Testament  writings,  are  very 
often  obliged  to  confess,  that  they  cannot,  indeed,  prove  by 
history  this  or  that  opinion  to  have  been  held  by  the  Gnos- 
tics ;  but  that  they  undoubtedly  did  hold  it,  because  St.  John, 
or  some  other  person,  refutes  them.  The  greater  portion  of 
these  writers  argue  in  this  way  :  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the 
Grnostics  ;  therefore  they  were  at  that  time  in  existence.  I 
might,  if  it  were  necessary,  bring  examples  of  this  :  it  will 
be  sufficient,  however,  to  refer  to  Michaelis,  Einleit.  ins  N. 
T.  Part.  II.  p.  1134,  Ed.  Gott.  1788,t  and  Mosheim,  on  i. 
Tim.  1.  4.  In  the  first  place,  however,  it  cannot  be  denied, 
that  these  learned  writers,  by  their  very  confession  that  they 
are  in  doubt,  and  that  they  cannot  advance  any  thing  more 
certain  than  conjectures,  betray  the  insuperable  difficulties 
which  stand  in  the  way  of  their  interpretation,  and,  in  con- 
sequence, reason,  as  we  say,  in  a  circle.  And,  in  the  next 
place,  this  way  of  proceeding  is  completely  to  draw  the 
meaning  from  another  source,  not  from  the  sacred  writings  ; 
and  belongs  to  that  species  of  interpretation,  which  seeks 
the  meaning  from  things,  and  is  employed  rather  about  these, 
than  the  explanation  of  words  ;  and  derives  the  meanings  of 
words  rather  from  the  opinions  of  some  sect  or  philosophy, 
of  which  no  trace  has  been  left  there  by  the  inspired  writ- 


*  [  Page  167,  Ed.  Lips.  1809.— TV.  ] 

t  [  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol.  in.  Part  i.  p.  279.  Ed.  Lond.  1S02.— Tr.] 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  393 

ors,  than  from  the  observations  of  grammarians,  from  the 
usage  of  speech  of  that  period,  and  from  the  words  and 
their  meaning,  legitimately  investigated.  The  slippery  and 
fallacious  character  of  this  method  of  accommodation,  (for 
so  it  ought  to  be  called,  rather  than  interpretation,)  may  easily 
be  perceived  by  every  learned  and  intelligent  man,  at  least 
if  he  is  not  already  imbued  with  some  false  opinion,  or  hin- 
dered by  any  other  cause  from  forming  a  candid  judgment : 
and  all  the  most  distinguished  theologians,  and  commentators 
on  the  sacred  books,  have  already  pronounced  decidedly  up- 
on its  uncertainty,  and  the  greatest  masters  of  interpretation 
have  very  clearly  proved  it.  Finally,  I  will  boldly  assert, 
that  learned  men  would  never  have  fallen  into  this  opinion, 
which  I  have  attempted  to  refute,  nor  so  strenuously  insisted 
upon  it,  unless  they  had  had  the  Gnostics  in  their  minds, 
before  they  came  to  the  task  of  interpreting  the  sacred 
books.  This  circumstance,  however,  is  a  proof,  how  much 
opinions,  once  imbibed,  stand  in  the  way  of  a  correct  deci- 
sion, and,  when  brought  to  the  explanation  of  the  sacred 
writings,  hinder  a  discovery  of  the  true  meaning  ;  so  strong- 
ly prejudicing  the  mind,  that  it  is  blind  amidst  the  clearest 
light,  and  resorts  to  every  expedient,  before  it  permits  it- 
self to  be  shaken  from  an  opinion,  once  received  and  che- 
rished. 

In  conclusion,  let  us  make  a  few  observations  respecting 
the  sources  and  origin  of  the  Gnostic  heresy  ^  for,  although 
these  may  be  understood,  I  think,  from  the  foregoing  pages, 
yet  it  w^ould  seem  as  if  they  ought  to  be  stated,  before  I  close, 
somewhat  more  summarily  and  clearly.  Learned  writers  ex- 
ceedingly differ  in  opinion,  in  regard  to  the  quarter  whence 
the  Gnostics  drew  their  opinions,  and  the  source  from  which 
their  errors  flowed.  Most  authors  consider  the  fountain-head 
to  have  been  a  certain  philosophy,  which  Mosheim  has  dis- 
tinguished by  the  name  of  the  Oriental ;  and  even  contend  in 
the  most  strenuous  manner,  that  from  this  the  whole  Gnostic 
doctrine  took  its  rise.  I  have  above  shewn,  however,  and 
not,  I  think,  without  good  grounds,  that  this  opinion,  if  not  en- 
tirely false,  is  at  least  very  uncertain ;  since  it  has  never  yet 

50 


394  NO  TRACES  OF  THE  ONOSTICS 

•been  proved  by  any  testimony,  which  even  has  any  semblance 
of  probability,  that  such  a  philosophy  ever  existed.  We  must 
look  ai'ound,  therefore,  for  some  other  origin  of  the  Gnostic 
errors.  And  of  these  there  were,  in  my  opinion,  more  sources 
than  one  ;  as  may  be  perceived  even  from  the  fact,  that  the 
Gnostics,  as  before  observed,  separated  into  parties,  widely 
different,  and  completely  disagreed  with  each  other.  It  is 
my  opinion,  therefore,  that  the  Gnostics  derived  their  doc- 
trines from  a  threefold  source  :  firsts  from  the  Greek  philoso- 
phy, the  Platonic  and  the  Pythagorean,  and  principally  from 
the  fictions  of  the  poets  concerning  the  gods  and  their  genea- 
logy, and  other  things  of  that  nature  ;  and  of  this,  even  that 
example  just  adduced  from  the  school  of  Valentine,  may  serve 
for  a  proof;  secondly,  from  the  Jewish  theology,  which  at 
that  period  had  nearly  assumed  the  garb  of  philosophy,  and 
chiefly  from  the  Cabbalistic  trifles  ;  finally,  also,  from  cer- 
tain doctrines  of  the  Christian  religion,  which  they  mingled 
with  their  own  opinions,  in  order  to  make  them  more  accept- 
able to  persons  of  every  description.  And,  on  this  account, 
indeed,  the  Gnostic  philosophy  seems  to  me  to  have  been  a 
mixture,  as  it  were,  of  Paganism,  Judaism,  and  Christianity  ; 
a;nd  the  Gnostics  themselves  to  have  been  nothing  but  fana- 
tics, or  rather,  if  I  may  so  speak,  to  have  professed  a  system 
of  naturalism  and  indifferentialism.  As  to  my  last  observa- 
tioii,  that  the  Gnostics  were  fanatics,  in  this  Semler  and 
MosHEiM  agree  with  me.  The  former,  in  his  Comment. 
Hist,  de  ant.  stat.  Christ,  p.  30,  observes  ;  "  we  readily  dis- 
cover the  uneasy  earnestness,  and  somewhat  fanatical  disposi- 
tion of  these  men  :"  and  the  latter,  in  his  Institutt.  H.  E.  ma], 
p.  147,  remarks,  "  the  Gnostics  were  not  indeed  dull,  and 
entirely  sluggish  in  their  character ;  but  they  were  not,  how- 
ever, sufficiently  sound  in  mind  ;  in  a  word,  they  were  meta- 
physicians, infected  with  a  kind  of  fanatical  contagion."  No 
man  can  be  at  all  doubtful  as  to  this  point,  who  has  even 
slightly  examined  the  opinions  of  the  Gnostics. — Something 
remains  to  be  said,  however,  in  regard  to  the  Jewish  theology, 
from  which,  as  I  observed,  the  Gnostics  partly  derived  their 
opinions.  The  chief  source,  and  the  foundation,  as  it  were,  of 
the  Gnostic  opinions,  appears  to  have  been  the  allegorical 


IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  395 

mode  ot'interpretation  ;  not  indeed  that  in  general  use,  but  that 
inferior  kind,  used  by  the  Alexandrian,  or  Greek  Jews.  For  it 
has  nothing  improper  in  itself;  and  is  accordingly  used  by  St. 
Paul  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians  and  Hebrews,  and  was 
formerly  adopted  frequently  by  the  prophets  themselvesi 
And  that  method  of  allegorical  interpretation  which  is  found 
in  Philo,  though  carried  to  too  great  an  extent,  is  not  to  be  al- 
together rejected,  but  deserves  some  toleration  and  excuse. 
From  Philo  principally,  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  de- 
rived this  method,  transmitted,  as  it  were,  from  hand  to  hand  : 
and  used  it  very  generally  :  among  these,  Clemens  Alexandri- 
nus,  Origen  himself,  and  others,  principally  Latin  writers,  not 
much  versed  in  Greek  and  Hebrew.  For  they  were  ex- 
ceedingly pleased  with  this  method  of  accommodating  the  figu- 
rative meaning  of  words,  and  of  the  things  indicated  by  them, 
to  their  prominent  doctrines ;  as  is  the  case  with  persons, 
who  have  no  acquaintance  with  literature  :  and  it  appeared 
to  them,  accordingly,  to  be  something  secret,  and,  as  it  were, 
revealed  from  above.  This  very  method,  therefore,  (which 
ought  to  be  borne  in  mind,  and  is  evident  from  the  Stro- 
mata  of  Clem.  Alex.)  was  called  yvCitfig ;  and  those  who 
were  skilled  in  it  applied  to  themselves,  xar'  i^oxnv,  the  title 
of  yvucfTixoi,  And  this  very  circumstance  was  perhaps 
also  the  reason,  that  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  throughout 
nearly  the  whole  of  that  excellent  work,  usually  distin- 
guished by  this  title  pious,  religious  men,  and  the  teachers  of 
the  church  themselves  ;  persons  as  different  as  possible  from 
those  heretics,  who  presumed  to  call  themselves  Gnostics. 
There  have  always,  however,  been  those  in  the  Christian 
church  itself,  ^^ho  have  abused  this  method,  and  thus  brought 
very  great  injury  upon  the  pure  doctrine  ;  not  only  causing 
grammatical  interpretation  to  be  neglected,  and  empty  trifling 
to  be  every  where  substituted  in  its  stead  ;  (as,  in  more  mo- 
dern days,  it  is  evident  has  been  done  by  Coccei'us,  a  very 
distinguished  man,  and  his  followers,)  but  also  opening  the 
way  to  very  grievous  errors.  This  is  plain  even  from  the 
single  example  of  Hymenaeus  and  Philetus,  ii.  Tim.  ii.  17  s., 
to  whom,  undoubtedly,  St.  Paul  referred  in  i.  Cor.  xv.  1^> 


S96  NO  TRACES  OP  THE  GNOSTICS 

since  they  denied  that  the  dead  will  return  to  life ;  into  whicii 
error  these  persons  and  others  fell  from  no  other  cause,  than 
interpreting  allegorically   several  passages  of  the  prophets 
and  of  the  gospels.     Far  more  grievously,  however,  did  the 
Jews  err ;  who,  as  they  indulged  their  ingenuity  much  more, 
which  was  acute,  indeed,  but  not  enlightened  from  above, 
nor  cultivated  by  sound  philosophy  and  letters,  and  too  luxu- 
riant, were  led  by  the  use  of  this  method  to  mingle  with  the 
pure  doctrine,  besides  other  corruptions,  pernicious  inven- 
tions, and  horrible  errors.     And  these  Jewish  inventions,  aris- 
ing from  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation,  and  other  opi- 
nions of  that  kind,  peculiar  to  this  people,  if  they  were  not 
the  origin  of  the  Gnostic  errors,  at  any  rate  gave  occasion  to 
them,  and  were  their  principal  source.     Of  this,  in  addition 
to  what  I  have  already  stated,  no  small  proof  is  afforded  in 
the  use  of  allegorical  interpretation  by  the  Gnostics,  for  the 
explanation  of  the  Old  Testament  books  ;  as  Tertullia?^ 
tells  us,  adv.  Valent.  c.  29  :  and,  besides  this,  in  the  remark- 
able agreement  between  the  Gnostics  and  Jews  as  to  some 
doctrines  ;  it  being  evident  to  any  one,  who  compares  the 
opinions  of  both,  that  those  of  the  one  were  derived  from 
those  of  the  other.     If  these  observations  which  I  have  thus 
far  made  respecting  the  sources  of  the  Gnostic  errors,  are 
borne  in  mind,  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  WTiters  may  be  re- 
conciled ;  some  of  whom,  as  we  have  already  seen,  suppos- 
ed the  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics  to  have  been  derived  from 
the  Jewish  fables,  and  others  from  the  Greek  philosophy  ; 
neither  is  it  necessary  to  look  for  any  other  source.     I  am 
surprised  at  the  inconsistency  of  Brucker  upon  this  subject : 
for,  in  the  passages  cited  above,  he  thinks  that  there  is  nothing 
more  certain,  than  that  the  Gnostic  philosophy  was  derived 
from  the  Oriental  alone  ;  and  yet  in  Tom.  ni.  of  the  work  so 
often  mentioned,  p.  296  s.,  where  he  is  treating  of  Valentine, 
who  was  the  most  virulent  and  wicked  of  all  the  Gnostics,  he 
wavers  ;  not  rejecting  the  opinions  of  the  ancient  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers,  but  saying  that  they  all  have  some  truth.     This 
inconsistency  is  itself  a  proof  of  a  doubtful  and  uncertain 
cause. 


151  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  39T 

Finally,  as  for  the  origin  of  the  Gnostic  heresy,  tliis,  in  my 
opinion,  is  to  be  traced  primarily  to  Egypt,  as  late  as  the  se- 
cond Century.  For  there  both  the  Greek  philosophy,  espe- 
cially the  Platonic,  (ks  Brucker  has  shewn.  Hist.  Crit.  Phil. 
Tom.  1.  p.  644,  and  667,)  and  also  the  Jewish  allegorical 
theology,  if  I  may  so  term  it,  had  many  admirers  and  follow- 
ers among  the  Greek  Jews.  In  the  next  place,  he  who  first 
treated  of  the  Gnostics,  was  an  ecclesiastical  writer  in  Egypt, 
and,  as  he  is  called  by  Brucker,  Tom.  vi.  p.  516,  "  a  person 
very  conversant  with  the  opinions  of  his  own  nation  ;"  (na- 
tionis  suae  opinionum  callentissimus,)  namely,  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus.  Finally,  all  the  leaders  of  this  heresy  were  Egyp- 
tians ;  for  example,  Basilides,  Carpocrates,  Valentine,  and 
others  :  as  has  been  shewn  by  Semler,  Select.  Capita  H.  E. 
Tom.  1.  p.  41  s.  ;  Comment.  Hist,  de  antiquo  Christ,  stat.  p. 
77  s. ;  where  he  says,  "  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  greater 
part  of  the  Gnostics  were  from  Alexandria  ;'' — and  by  Mos- 
HEiM  himself,  Instit.  H.  E.  maj.  p.  148,  and  326.  It  is  not 
probable,  therefore,  that  that  heresy  prevailed,  at  first,  chiefly 
in  Asia  and  Palestine,  but  only  in  Egypt.  This  I  said  was  in 
the  time  of  Adrian ;  though  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  positively, 
that  there  were  some,  before  this  period,  who  agreed  in  many 
opinions  with  the  Gnostics.  Tertullian,  de  Praes.  adv. 
Haer.  c.  33,  has  not  denied  this  ;  and  indeed  it  could  not  be 
otherwise  ;  since  these  heretics  were  not  themselves  the  au- 
thors of  their  opinions,  but  received  most  of  them  from  others, 
and  fashioned  them  after  their  own  pleasure.*  I  intended, 
therefore,  only  to  say  this,  that,  before  the  second  Century, 
neither  the  name  of  the  Gnostics  was  in  existence,  (for  I 
stated,  a  short  time  since,  that  those  who,  in  the  First,  and 
in  the  beginning  of  the  Second  Century,  are  called  Gnostics 


*  This  is  what  Tertullian  means,  when  he  says,  adv.  Hermog.  c.  8. 
"  haereticorum  patriarchae  Philosophi;"  which  observation  refers  parti- 
cularly to  the  Gnostics,  and  by  which  Tertullian  means  to  shew,  that  the 
heresies  of  the  Gnostics  were  derived  from  certain  opinions  of  the  phi- 
losophers. If  some  learned  writers  had  thus  understood  Tertullian,  it 
would  have  saved  many  unproiitable  discussions  and  cdntroversie*:. 


398  K.O  TRACES  OF  THE  GNOSTICS 

by  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  were  different  persons,)  nor  any 
peculiar  sect,  or  heresy,  pernicious  to  the  Christian  doctrine. 
To  this  those  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  question  usually  ob- 
ject, that  it  is  difficult  to  perceive  how  the  Gnostics  could,  in 
the  second  Century,  have  acquired  such  numbers  and  reputa- 
tion, unless  we  suppose  that  their  trifles  began  long  before. 
This  makes  nothing,  however,  against  my  opinion.  For  these 
learned  writers  appear  to  have  no  just  ground  for  supposing, 
that  the  number  of  those  who  embraced  the  opinions  of  the 
Gnostics  was  large  ;  since  this  cannot  be  proved  by  any  tes- 
timony from  the  ancient  writers,  who  nowhere  so  express 
themselves  as  to  lead  us  to  the  inference,  that  the  number  of 
the  Gnostics  was  extraordinarily  great.  But  even  supposing 
that  it  was,  I  do  not  see  that  this  circumstance  ought  to  present 
any  difficulty  to  the  mind,  or  that  it  can  prove  the  antiquity  of 
the  Gnostics ;  since  folly,  barren  and  obscure  as  it  is,  generally 
finds  more  followers  in  a  short  time,  than  wisdom,  with  all  its 
fruitful  lustre,  after  a  long  period.  And  even  those  very  in- 
juries which  they  brought  upon  the  Christian  faith  and  doc- 
trine, in  the  second,  and  two  succeeding  centuries,  do  not 
appear  to  have  been  as  great  as  is  generally  supposed.  That 
they  were  severe  and  various  ;  that  many  who  had  recently 
embraced  the  Christian  faith,  and  were  not  as  yet  sufficiently 
confirmed  in  it,  fell  into  doubts  and  errors  through  the  abo- 
minable opinions  of  the  Gnostics  ;  that  the  wavering  were 
staggered  ;  and  that  thus  whole  churches  were  thrown  into 
confusion ;  I  would  not  venture  to  deny.  But  that  the  true 
faith  was,  every  where,  entirely  corrupted  and  weakened  by 
them  ; — that  an  innumerable  multitude  of  persons  was  in- 
duced to  embrace  them  ; — and  that  the  whole  world  was  de- 
filed with  these  iniquitous  doctrines  ; — as  is  generally  sup- 
posed by  learned  writers ;  this  I  have  never  yet  been  able 
to  persuade  myself  to  believe.  There  is  not  the  least  trace 
of  such  a  fact  in  any  ancient  author,  nor  any  statement  what- 
ever that  the  number  of  these  heretics  was  at  all  consider- 
able. Neither  can  it  in  any  way  be  conceived,  how  the  ec- 
clesiastical writers,  burning,  as  they  did,  with  an  eager  de- 
sire to  oppose  heretics,  to  expose  all  their  errors,  to  drive 


IN  THE  NEW  TE&TAMENT.  399 

away  what  were  plainly  detected,  and  to  refute  them  in  the 
most  convincing  manner,  and  entirely  root  them  out  of  the 
minds  of  men,  could  have  suffered  Christians  to  be  corrupted 
and  led  away  by  detestable  opinions,  and  poisonous  reason- 
ings of  this  kind  ;  and  would  not,  on  the  contrary,  have  used 
every  effort  for  averting  so  great  a  danger.  Moreover,  ge- 
nerally speaking,  (and  I  perceive  that  Semler  is  of  the  same 
opinion,  Comment.  Hist,  de  antiq.  Christ,  stat.  p.  78,)  these 
numerous  sects  of  the  Gnostics  seem  to  have  been  of  more 
profit  than  injury  to  Christianity :  since,  like  all  who  ever 
plotted  ruin  to  the  holy  religion  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
they  afforded  a  most  favorable  opportunity  for  more  clearly 
perceiving  its  truth,  for  embracing  it  more  heartily  than  ever, 
and  for  establishing  it  on  firmer  ground  ;  and  thus,  by  the 
very  snares  which  they  laid,  gave  this  most  important  evi- 
dence in  its  favor ;  viz.  that,  in  the  midst  of  so  many,  and 
such  various  and  pernicious  enemies,  and  in  spite  of  all  the 
hostile  attacks,  and  malicious  insults  of  its  assailants,  it  re- 
mained constantly  unshaken  and  uninjured,  supported  by  the 
divine  aid,  sustained  by  its  own  strength,  and  trusting  to  the 
justice  of  its  cause ;  and  at  length  victoriously  triumphed 
over  every  enemy. 


HISTORY 

OF  THE 

INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAH. 


BY  W.  GESENIUS. 


Translated  from  the  German, 
BY  SAMUEL  H.  TURNER,  D.  D. 

PROrSSSOR  07  BIB.  LEAUN.  ilND  INTERP.  OF  SCRIPT.  IN  THS  GENERAL 

THEOL.  SEM.  OF  THE  PROT    EPISC.  CHURCH 

IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


51 


INTERPRETATION 


OF  THE 


PROPHET  ISAIAH 


I.  Ancient  Versions. 

§  1. 
The  Septuagintf  together  with  the  other  Greek  Versions. 

The  Alexandrine  version  presents  us  with  the  first  attempt 
that  was  made  to  exhibit  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  in  a  foreign 
idiom.  It  deserves  the  most  particular  attention,  partly  on 
account  of  the  antiquity  of  the  traditional  interpretations 
which  are  contained  in  it,  and  partly  because  it  is  the  ground- 
work of  several  other  versions,  as  the  Vulgate  and  Sjrriac. 
The  translator  has  probably  left  no  other  book  than  this,  al- 
though' it  discovers  some  resemblance  to  the  translation  of  the 
Pentateuch.*     In  common  with  the  translators  of  most  of  the 


1   The  expression  niSO^  TTin  is  preserved  in  Kt/^io;  1»&^au^  almost 

T  :        f    '• 

exclusively  by  this  translator.  In  the  other  books,  it  is  K(/§i»(  tm  fwuf 
fximf  or  T»»  ffr^ftneiv.  ri'^Z'j<  *s  rendered  eTsyJ'goir  only  in  xvii.  8.  xxvu, 
9 ;  elsewhere  d\<ros  is  generally  used. 

Particular  instances  of  agreement  with  the  translator  of  the  Penta- 
teuch are  the  following :  "^Vili  >«»g<»f ,  a  stranger,  a  proselyte,  only  in 
XIV.  1,  and  Ex.  xii.  19 ;  npji  |*j,  jfcctTat^«/u/t««i  jc«l  ffm^fjta.,  xiv.  22,  and 
•Oen.  XXI.  23 ;  nS'K*  f*"*;*  tj/oi,  v.  10,  and  Deut,  xyi.  36,  (elsewhere  i^ 


404  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION 

other  books,  especially  the  poetical  and  prophetic,  he  is  defi- 
cient in  comprehensive  and  general  knowledge  of  language, 
and  in  giving  the  grammatical  sense,  and  interpreting  with 
the  necessary  accuracy.^  Consequently,  he  fails  in  making 
an  adequate  version  of  a  text,  which  is  in  itself  so  difficult, 
and  the  obscurities  of  which  are  increased  by  its  want  of  vow- 
els^ and  of  spaces  between  the  words.  For  these  reasons 
difficult  places  are  often  misunderstood,  (see  ix.  21,)  a  suita- 
ble connexion  very  frequently  missed,  and  in  numerous  in- 
stances it  becomes  necessary  to  express  a  meaning,  which 
has  no  better  foundation  than  critical  and  philological  conjec- 
ture. 

The  following  peculiarities  of  this  translator  are  worthy 
of  notice. 

1.  He  is  fond  of  explaining  tropical  expressions  in  proper 
language,  although  his  success  in  thus  giving  the  meaning  is 
by  no  means  uniform.  For  example  :  i.  25,  i'Sn:j~Sr,  'KOMTag 
Toug  ctvo/xou^,  (Aq.  Sym.  Theod.  xatftfiVspov  tfou ;)  in.  17,  naa^ 
tvy  mi2  "tpnp  'J^Js*,  'TOLirs'wiuidBi  0  &£og  app^outfag  ^uyars^a?  2»wv ;  v. 
17,  0*1313  U'\tf1^  1;;i,  ^^(iy.y{h'ri(i(ivtui  h  ^<>]p'tfa(3'|X£'vo»  (Sym.  hi  a/xvoj) 
(«;S  raufoj  ;  vi.  1,  So^nn  HK  D^kSd  vSi^^,  xa»'  crXTj^Yjj  o  ojxog  t^j  (5o'|7)5 
durou*  (Sym.  Theod.  xai  Ta  crpoj  "To^wv  aucou  IcrX'^pouv  cov  vaov  ;) 
Vlh.  6,  H'SdI  pi  rxi  nx  Vrmt^'^,  aXka,  .SouXeCSai  s'xs'v  <rov  'Pac'c'/v 
xai  rov  iiiov  'PofjisXi'ou  /SatfiXsa  ^(p'  Cfxwv  ;  ix.  14,  pDJNI  n33,  fJ^eyav 
xai  fA»xpov,  but  in  xix.  15,  app^ijv  xai  rsKog  ;    x.  14,  f]J3  in:  n*n  kS 


is  oi^t ;)  rift'^Vt  tk&ifJLarv^n,  in  i.  27,  xxviu.  17,  lix.  16,  and  Deut.  vi.  25, 

Itt  : 

XXIV.  13.    Comp.  also  xni.  16,  and  Deut.  xxvin.  30.     Also  Isa.  xxxvm. 

11,  where  the  idea  of  seeing  God  is  removed.     Comp.  Ex.  xxiv.  10. 

The  difference  between  the  translator  of  Isaiah  and  that  of  the  Minor 

prophets  may  be  seen  by  comparingii.  1 — 4  with  Mic.  iv.  1,  ss.,  and  from 

that  of  the  historical  books,  from  xxxvi — xxxix  compared  with  2  Kings, 

xvin.  ss. — A  remarkable  coincidence  with  the  translation  of  the  Psalms 

occurs  m  xxvi.  14  :  ^r^f^ry  ^3  D"'X9*1j  o^^*  litTgoi  Iv  fjm  aiAcrToa-ovvt,  nor 
I T      -        'T  : 

can  the  physicians  raise  up  [a  dead  person],  as  if  it  were  :iD»p"'  cxSl? 

just  as  in  Ps.  lxxxvii.  11. 

a    See  my  history  of  the  Hebrew  language  and  writing,  [  Gescbichte 
d€r  Heb.  Sprache  und  Schrift.  S.  78,  79.  ] 

»   See,  in  proof  of  this,  Gesch.  der  Heb.  Spr.  und  Schr.  S.  190. 


OF    THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  405 

'"]2fiD3f01  Hi)  nV31  ««<  oux  fc^iv  og  dioLtpsu^srai  fte,  ^  oL^miirj]  f/-oi,  (Theod. 
xai  avoiywv  to  CTofia  xai  tfrpoud-i^wv  ;)  x.  16,  Vil^WD^  "^in,  s/g  ttjv 
tfigv  TifAiiv  arifAiav  ;  x.  19,  n>;'  ]*;?  *ix;&'  it  xuTokSKp'^ivTSs  dcr'  duTWV, 
(Sym.  TO,  gViXoi-ara  cwv  ^iJXwv  tou  opu/xou  ctuTou  ;)  xi.  4,  V2  122V2,  9"? 
Xoyw  Toy  CrofXaTo^  du<rou  ;  xi.  14,  D"'ntB^'?a  ^nD3  13;r,  flrgTcwr^^tfovTai  sv 
vrXoioig  'AXXotpuXwv  ;  xiv.  9,  yMi  mn;;,  dp^ovrs^  t^?  y^S  ;  xiv.  12, 
iriK^  |3  hh'i}f  6  'Ewtfipopog  6  "jr^wi  dvaTsXXwv;  xxi.  10,  'JIJ  j3  'H^^nD, 
Of  3caTaX£Xsj|X|xivoi  xa/  oi  o(5uvwf/»£vo» ;  xxil.  23,  xa/  Ct^Cw  auTov  d^ovra 
(nn**)  sv  TO'ffCf}  ieis(f> ;  24,  xa/  s?cm  crs-roi^wg  (vSj?  iSnl)  s<n''  au<rov  <xoig 
sv^o|oj dflfo  fxixpou  £Wj  fisyaXoy,  xa<  sCovrat  scrjxps/xdjxgvai  duT(/T 

(D^Sajn  ^S3  S3  ly)  m^i^^  '^30  |»pn  '^^  "^^  mjr'asn)  D^K:fNvn ;)  uii. 

4,  IJ^Sn,  ^a^  djxa^Ti'a^  ujuowv  ;  LVill.    1,  |n:i3  N"lp,  dva/So'rjtfsv  Iv  iVp^uj. 

As  an  instance  of  erroneous  explanation,  xxviii.  20  may  be 
given  :  ojjnnD  niv  njODni  ;;"»nK^nD  _j7VDn  "^vp  ' j,  ctsvoxw^ou/xsvoj, 

ou  duvdjiAS&a  /xd;(£(r^a<,  auroj  ^s  d^r^evoufxfv  tou  y^dg  tfuvax^^vai,  (JSym. 
sxoXo/3w&>)  ydp  Yj  (fTpuii^vri  ii£  ro  fjii^  dva'jrstfsiv^  xa<  »j  Cxrjvii  Jygvsro  iig 
TO  ^17  EKTsX^srv.)  See  also  xxii.  23,  xxv.  4,  5,  xxxu.  2,  xxxvn. 
27. 

2.  He  often  introduces  short  explanations  to  make  the  sense 
•clear.  For  example :  i.  21,  "TroXig  '^rio'H,  (lii^v ; )  iv.  4,  (twv 
■jiwv  xoi)  Twv  ^yyaTSPWv  2iwv  ;  v.  13,  Dyi  'SjO,  <5id  to  p^rj  hdsvat 
auToC'g  (tov  Ky'^ov)  ;  ix.  1,  (toiJto  ir^wTov  cn's^J  ;  ix.  10,  (:'«'  oixooo/a^- 
tfofxev  ^auToij  'jry^yov)  ;  ix.  21,  ort  d/A-a  (croXjo^x^o'eufl'j)  tov  'IquSolv  ;  x. 
9,  XaXdvTf]5  (6u  6  Ty^yos  uxoSoixyj^y))  ;  xxill.  15,  wj  Xf°^°^  ^atftXew^, 
(t^S  X^^°^  dv^^wflrou;)  xL.  1,  (»5^s»?)  ;  XLii.  1,  ('Iaxw/3,)  6  flrar^ 
jxou.  .  .  .  ('Itf^aigX,)  o  sxXsxro'g  /xou  ;  XLVin.  11,  oti  (to  £fji,ov  ovojwx) 
Ssprikourai ;  lx.  1,  (pwrt'^ou,  (pwTi^ou,  ('Is^ouCaXTjiw.)  ;  LVHl.  13, 
XaXTjtfs'?  Xoyov  (sv  ojpy^)  ;  lxv.  4,  (didivy-rvia),  see  the  note  on  this 
place. — Short  interpolations  taken  from  parallel  places  arc 
also  to  be  found  ;  for  example,  i.  7,  in  the  Alexandrine  manu- 
script, which  is  from  i.  22  ;  xl.  5,  to  Cwttjpjov  Toy  ^soy,  from  lit. 


♦  The  meaning  of  this  addition  to  the  text  is  explained  in  the  Chal- 
dee,  which  expresses  the  signification  of  j^g^ra  in  xiii.  1,  xv.  1,  xxi.  1, 

T    — 

by  a  periphrasis:  (^33)  ni  riNpS'NS  DlSl  D3  SCJD,  the  raising  up  of 
ibt  cup  <^ malediction  thai  {^Babylon)  may  drink  if. 


4D6  QN    THE    INTERPRETATION-. 

10 ;  XLVii.  16,  ov6s  iv  roircf)  yr^g  Cxoreivw,  from  xlv.  1^.  Two 
larger  interpolations,  the  causes  of  which  I  am  not  able  to 
discover,  occur  in  xiv,  20,  ov  t^oVov  {jxarjov  iv  aj/xari  -Trscpu^fA-svov 
oux  'idToa  xoL^OL^h  ovruis  oUds  (fv  stfr  xa^-a^oV,  and  XXII.  22,  >iOL'  ^wtfw 
qr-^v  5ofav  Aaui5  aurw,  xa/'  a^^?<,  xai  oux  sWaj  6  dvTiXgywv.  On  the 
Other  hand,  there  are  also  some  omissions,  as  in  xxxvi.  7,  and 
V,  13  of  ch.  xxxvu. 

3.  He  avoids  such  expressions  as  may  be  thought  indecent 
and  offensive,  for  which  he  substitutes  euphemisms.'  For 
'example :  ui.  17,  rri;;"  |nr\3,  avaxaXJ4'£i  to   cx^f^a  aurwv ;  xiii. 

16,  njSjB^n  DH'B^JI,  xcti  ras  yuvaixa^  duTWv  £|outf<v,  (comp.  Deut. 

xxviii.  30 ;)  XX.  4,  niy  ^aiiyn,  dvaxsxaXufAfx^vai ;  xxni.  17,  nmn 

'pxn  noSDD  Sj  nw,  xa/  eWai  ^/AflTo^iov  flratfajj  Tafg  ^adikslais 
trriS  oixovii^ivris ;  XXVUI.  8,  a^a  g^srar  TauTiiv  ti^v  /JouXi^v,  duTo^  yd* 
»j  /SouXii  svsxa  'fl'Xsovs^iaf.  The  last  instance  is  a  perfect  quid 
pro  quo  for  the  correct  translation  of  Aquila,  Symmachus, 
and  Theodotion,  oVi  'jcagai  di  T^d-n-s^ai  S'rXri^wS-Tjo'av  gjuisrou.  wC-rg  {iri 
{i^d^siv  To-TTov. — The  author  appears  also  to  have  taken  umbrage 
at  the  cursing  of  God  mentioned  in  vni.  21,  and  therefore  in- 
stead of  Vn^KI  oSd  SSp,  he  substitutes  xa/  xaxQg  i^sTrs  tov  a^- 
^o»Ta  xa<  rd  ^dr^ia.  (Symmachus  ha«,  in  like  manner,  9rd- 
r^oL^a  g»5wXa,  his  country's  idols.)  It  is  not  improbable,  in- 
deed, that  in  this  passage  the  true  meaning  may  be  given. 

4.  In  explaining  geographical  names  he  is  often .  ignorant 
and  arbitrary.     Thus,  x.  9,  nan  ^shnj  vh  D«  )jSd  b'^dj'^do  K^n, 

")})  oux  eXa/3ov  tt^v  ^wp^^v  tijv  s<jrdvw  Ba^uXwvo?  xa/  XaXdv7)g,  (6u  6  cnJ^- 

yo?wxo5f)(jL»j&>],)  xa/ eXa^ov 'Apd^iav  .  .  .  .  in  X.  29,  he  connects 
the  words  Sixty  n;r3:  rrai  thus,  *Pa/xd,  flroXij  SaouX  ;  xi.  11,  onns 
is  here  translated  by  Ba^uXwvia,  and  O'n  "kdi  nDHD  *i;;:ipd  by 

difh  ^Xi'ou  dvaroXwv,  xa/'  i|  'Apa/Sia?  ;  xv.  1.  3K1D  l^p,  to  t^i^oS  «"^S 
Mcjaj8»Ti5o5  ;  in  xxni.  1  and  x.  14,  he  explains  Br'B'"in  by  Kap^ri- 
5cdv,  as  the  translator  of  Ezekiel  does  in  xxvn.  12,  25,  xxxvni. 


»  The  same  effort  shows  itself  in  the  Talmudists  and  Masoriies,  and 
in  the  alterations  which  the  Samaritans  have  made  in  the  text  See  my 
Comment,  de  Pentat.  Sam.  p.  60.  These  learned  Jews  seem  to  have 
considered  such  offensive  expressions  as  inconsistent  with  the  dignity 
of  the  holy  scriptures. 


OP    THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  407 

13,  but  in  Lx.  0,  ly'Bfin  nvix  is  leXoTn  ©a^tfic,  and  in  u.  16,  lekom 
^a.Xa(f(trig  ;  xxxvii.  13,  Hijn  JT^n  D^IISD,  *E'r(papouaj>  'Avayouyava* 
yet  in  the  Alexandrine  text  it  is,  2s*(?a^gifA ;    v.  12,  p;^  '33 

n^N^nj,  Oil  IWiv  ^v  Xw^a  06efxa&,  Alex,  ^aifxa^  ;  XLIll.  3,  K3D,  Sovjvt;, 

(but  that  is  miD  ;)  xlix.  12,  D'^d  p«3,  ^x  ySj^  nsptfwv  (Aq. 
Sym.  Theod.  2ivsi|ut.) 

5.  Very  frequently  does  he  show  the  Alexandrine  and  ge- 
nerally the  Egyptian  Jew  :.  for,  when  the  subject  relates  to 
Egypt,  he  selects  those  terms  which  were  the  most  usual 
and  expressive  in  that  country  ;  and,  indeed,  he  introduces 
such  where  they  are  less  appropriate.  Thus  in  v.  10,  he  ex- 
plains the  word  i^n  by  the  Egyptian  measure  aprafSai  s^-  (see 
the  note  ;)  in  xxu.  15,  pon  by  ira^To(popSiov,  (which  in  other 
places  is  used  for  the  Hebrew  ryDHfh,)  a  cell,  a  treasury  of  the 
Egyptian  priests.  Creuzer's  Symbolik,  Th.  1.  §.  247,  2te. 
Ausg.  In  xxxiv.  11,  fj^u^r,  a  heron,  is  translated  '{$is.  The 
observation  is  particularly  applicable  to  ch.  xix.,  which  con- 
tains a  number  of  expressions  very  familiar  to  an  Egyptian. 
Thus,  in  v.  2,  for  hdSod  Sk  hd^oo  we  have  vofAov  i<n:l  vofxov  ;  in 
V.  6,  for  "iiVD  nN%  ai  ditipv/sg  tou  flroTflfAou ;  in  V.  7,  for  nny,  oix'f 
the  Egyptian  word  for  reeds  of  the  Nile  :  comp.  the  Heb. 
m^  ;  in  V.  9,  for  '"»in,  Burftfov ;  in  v.  10,  for  ^2^  'vy,  ^oiovvrsg  rov 
^u^ov ;  V.  11  and  13,  for  |;>y,  Tavij.  He  appears  also  in  the 
last  passage  to  have  availed  himself  of  the  history  of  Egypt, 
in  order  to  illustrate  the  meaning  ;  i^sXiirov  o»  ap^ovrs^  Tavsw^, 
Tccci  64'W&ii(j'av  01  'ip'^ovTSs  Msfjoipscijs*  provided  Memphis  raised  her- 
self above  the  older  chief  cities  of  Egypt  at  a  more  recent 
period  than  the  other.     See  Diod.  Sic  1.  50. 

6.  The  translator  of  Isaiah  has  occasionally  introduced  in 
his  version  allusions  to  relative  circumstances  in  his  own  times, 
and  arbitrary  changes  made  out  of  respect  to  the  Egyptian 
Jews  and  also  to  the  Jewish  theology  of  his  day.  This  is  a 
disposition  which  appears  to  have  been  common  to  the  learn- 
ed of  Alexandria  and  many  others  with  the  Samaritans®, 
and  which  seems  heretofore  to  have  been  altogether  over- 


*  Sec  my  Comment,  de  Pent.  Sam.  $  16. 


408  OF    THE    INTERPttETATlON 

looked.  Thus  in  ix.  12,  for :  *  the  Syrians  from  before,  and 
the  Philistines  from  behind,  they  devour  Israel  with  open 
mouth,*  the  Septuagint  has  :  Supj'av  a<f'  rihis  avaToXwv,  xai  toO^ 
'''EXXrjvas  (Aq.  Sym.  Theod.  tdvs  ^iXjrfTjSiV)  a(p*  rtkm  (^'uo'fji.wv, 
probably  in  order  to  introduce  the  subjection  of  the  Jewish 
nation  by  the  Greek  dynasties  of  the  Ptolemies  and  Seleu- 
cidae.  As  in  the  other  places  where  the  word  D^niySs  occurs, 
it  is  always  correctly  translated  by  'AXX6(puXo»,  it  is  plain  that 
intention,  not  ignorance,  lies  at  the  bottom  of  his  version  in 
this  passage.  According  to  the-  translator,  then,  the  subjec- 
tion of  the  Jews  by  the  Greek  dynasties  was  predicted  by 
Isaiah.'' — In  xix.  25,  the  Hebrew  means :  *  blessed  be  my 
people  Egypt,  and  Assyria  the  work  of  my  hands,'  which  the 
Alexandrine  translator  interprets  as  a  blessing  pronounced 
on  the  Egyptian  and  Assyrian  Jews  :  ^uXoy^if^osvo?  o  Xaog  fAou  6  iv 
'Aiyu-n-Tw,  xa<  sv  'Atftfupjoij.  As  the  prophets  had  frequently 
censured  in  plain  terms  the  emigrations  of  the  Jews  to 
Egypt  as  opposition  to  the  theocracy,  (see  Jer.  xbii.  43,)  and 
as  the  Hellenists  were  generally  considered  by  the  Hebrews 
as  half"  profane,  the  Alexandrine  translator  avails  himself  of 
this  passage,  wherein  Jehovah  himself  declares  them  blessed. 
~^In  xix.  18,  the  Hebrew  Dinn  '^y,  city  of  destruction,  as  the 
Chaldee  also  interprets  it,  was  probably  altered  in  the  He- 
brew text  of  the  Alexandrine  Jews  into  pnxn  T;r,  city  of 
righteousness  ;  and  hence  the  translation,  ^oXi^  'Atfs^sx,  which 
was  explained  of  LeontopoHs  with  its  Jewish  temple.  See 
Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  3.  §  3. — Whoever  is  acquainted  with  the 
spirit  of  the  more  modern,  sectarian  Judaism,  and  with  the 
art  with  which  the  Jewish  parties  explain,  and  even  alter,  the 
Old  Testament  to  serve  the  views  of  their  schools  and  sects, 
will  readily  perceive  what  value  the  polemics  of  the  Alexan- 
drians may  have  attached  to  such  places.  The  last  cited  al- 
teration is  altogether  analogous  to  the  well  known  Samaritan 
reading  of  Deut.  xxvii.  4. 


t  The  Mohammedans  also  find  in  this  book  predictions  of  their  ourn 
prophet.    See  D'Herbklot,  Orient.  Biblioth.  under  Isaia. 


OF    THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  409 

It  is  one  consequence  of  the  more  modern  Jewish  theology^ 
that  the  translator  sometimes  speaks  of  demons,  (xni.  21. 
ixxiv.  i4.  Lxv.  11.)  with  which  the  age  of  Isaiah,  properly 
speaking,  was  unacquainted.*  To  this  subject  is  to  be  re- 
ferred, perhaps,  xxx.  4,  where,  for  the  Hebrew,  |;;2f:i  rn  o 

V2K'7D>   VlB^,  the  SeptUdgint  has,  on    hat  iv  Tavsi  d^fiyoi  ayysXoi 

•ro'vii^oi'  evil  angels  rule  in  Tanis,  probably,  in  reference  to  the 
idolatrous  worship  which  prevailed  there,  and  which  the 
Jewish  theology  ascribed  to  evil  angels.  But  the  passage 
relating  to  the  Messiah,  which  in  xxxviii.  11,  the  translator 
introduces,  is  of  particular  importance,  while  at  the  same  time 
he  removes  the  offensive  declaration  which  might  seem  to 
be  implied  in  the  Hebrew,  that  Hezekiah  had  seen  God.* 
For:   D^'H  pNj  n^  n^  nxnj<  ifh  he  has:    'OuksVj   6m  iirj  i'^w  ro 

'Itf^ttTjX  sT^t  yris.  To  see  the  meaning  of  this  expression, 
which  is  hardly  to  be  misunderst*  ;od,  compare  Luke,  u.  30, 
on  hdcv  hi  6(p3-aXfxoi  (xou  70  tfwT^piov  ffo^  ;  ni.  6,  'xai  o-^srou  ^oLttcc 
tfa^f  TO  tfwrri^iov  rov  ^sov,  and  Acts,  xxvm.  28,  Torg  gS-vstfiv  dirsia- 
Xt]  to  tfwT^^jov  Tou  ^sov,  Scc  also  Isa.  xl.  5.  lii.  10.  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint. 

There  are  some  passages  where  the  translator  has  given  a 
Chaldee  signification  to  HeBrew  words,  because,  undoubted- 
ly, the  Syro-Chaldaic  idiom  which  then  prevailed  in  Palestine, 
was  familiar  to  him.  For  instance,  in  iv.  2,  no^f  n^n  is  render- 
ed  i'leiXait.^^st,    Comp.  l^^s,  brightness,  splendor;  lui.  10,  lfc«OT 


•  [  That  the  doctrine  of  demons  or  evil  angels  was  unknown  in  the 
age  of  Isaiah  is  a  statement,  which  will  not  be  very  readily  conceded 
by  those  who  admit  the  genuin,eness  and  authenticity  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.  The  reader  may  find  it  in  Deut.  xxxii.  17.  Ps.  xc. 
(Sept.)  6.  xcvi.  (xcv.  Sept.)  5,  where  J'^iiu.ovott  is  used,  and  in  1  Sam- 
ivi.  14, 16.  xviii.  10,  and  elsewhere.      Tr.  ] 

0  How  oflFensive  this  language  has*  been  thought  by  the  more 
modern  of  the  learned  Jews,  is  shown  by  the  alteration  of  the  Samari- 
tan text  in  Ex.  xxiv.  10,  the  Alexandrine  version  of  y.  10  emd  11,  (see 
my  Comment,  de  Pent.  Sara.  p.  51,)  and  the  place  in  the  Talmud,  which 
relates  to  Isaiah's  condemnation,  Mishna,  Tract,  Jdtamoth,  iv.  ^r?. 

52 


4l0  UN  THE  INTERPRETATION 

xa&ttfjVai  ctuTov,  Comp.  «3^,  equivalent  to  hdt,  to  be  pure.  But 
that  this,  or  any  other  of  the  Alexandrine  translators,  was  ac- 
quainted with  any  well  founded  meanings  drawn  from  the 
usage  of  the  Arabians,^  I  am  now  obliged  altogether  to  ques- 
tion. The  instance  in  vu.  6,  which,  in  an  earlier  publication,*" 
I  alleged  in  favour  of  this  opinion,  may  be  differently  explain- 
ed ;  and  if,  in  other  places,  significations  are  to  be  found  which 
are  now  pecuhar  to  the  Arabic,  yet  is  it  to  be  considered,  that 
the  Alexandrian  was  acquainted  with  them  as  Hebrew  or 
Chaldee.'*     See  the  note  on  lxv.  23. 

The  Hebrew  text,  from  which  the  Alexandrine  version  was 
made,  had,  almost  throughout,  the  same  readings  as  have  been 
preserved  in  the  masoretical  text.  A  right  apprehension  of 
the  character  of  this  version  will  easily  convince  a  man  of 
this.  All  the  evident  aberrations  are  to  be  attributed  to  con- 
jecture, as,  for  instance,  ^«j  Stavarov  in  liu.  8,  for  idS,  or,  to  other 
liberties  taken  by  the  translator.  In  general,  too,  the  clear 
or  real  varieties  are  manifestly  worse  than  the  masoretical 
text ;  for  example,  <5w^a  in  vni.  20,  for  ^n^,  after  the  reading 
nnt^r,  fAaTTjv  in  xxx.  4,  for  DJn,  according  to  the  reading  D:n. 

The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  employ,  almost  entire- 
ly, the  Alexandrine  version  of  our  prophet,  from  which  they 
make  quotations  w^ith  various  degrees  of  accuracy,  or  merely 
according  to  their  recollection.  Only  Matthew  follows  it 
more  rarely,  (for  example,  in.  3.  comp.  Isa.  xl.  3  ;  iv.  15,  16, 
comp.  Isa.  vui.  23,  ix.  1,  according  to  the  Alexandrine  text  ; 
xni.  15.  comp.  Isa.  vi.  9),  and  sometimes  recurs  to  the  He- 
brew text,  which  he  explains  in  a  different  manner,  probably 
according  to  the  Chaldee  version  then  in  circulation.  Comp. 
Matt.  1.  23,  <5ou  ^  cra^&svo?  iv  yadT^i  s^si^  (Sept.  XTj-vj^srar)  xai  ts^s- 
Ttti  uiov,  xai  xaXsVoutfi  (Sept.  xaktcfsis)  to  ovofxa  aurou  'EfjijuLavou^X. 
The  expression  xaXsVouCi  for  the  passive  xXrjS^tfsTaiis  very  com- 


9  Gesch.  der  Heb.  Spr.TP.  78. 

1  0  Ubi  sup. 

«  I  To  show  this  is  the  principal  design  of  the  valuable  work  of  Ko- 
i;her  against  Lowth,  see  below,  $  20,  1,  note  1.  For  critical  improve- 
ment  of  the  Greek  text,  see  the  remarks  of  Schleusner,  in  his  Opu5.. 
efii.  ad  Versiones  Greecas  V.  T.  pertinent.  Lips.  1813,  pp.  326.  ss. 


OF  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAH.  411 

raon  in  the  Aramaean,  (see  Gram.  Lehrgeb.  S.  798,)  and  bears 
upon  an  intermediate  Chaldee  idiom. — vni.  17,  aurog  rag  dtf&s- 
vsiag  TiyMv  eXa/Ss  xai  ras  v6(f ovg  sf36L(f<ru(fsv'  Comp.  Isa.  LUl.  4, 
where  the  Septuagint  expresses  a  sense  altogether  different, 
and  not  adapted  to  Matthew's  purpose,  outo?  las  aixa^riag  *jfA.wv 
(ps'^gi,  xai  cre^/tjfxwvc^uvttTOT.* — Matt.  xn.  18 — 21.  Here  Isa.  xlu. 
1,  ss.  is  introduced,  but  very  different  from  the  Alexandrine 
version,  and  agreeing  with  the  sense  of  the  Chaldee,  although 
not  literally  with  our  Targum  of  Jonathan.  But  that  there 
was  a  Chaldee  translation  approximating  partly  to  the  He- 
brew text,  and  partly  to  the  Greek  of  Matthew,  is  probable 
even  from  particular  explanations  of  words.  See  the  Com- 
mentary on  xLii.  4.  A  similar  instance  is  afforded  in  1  Cor. 
XV.  55,  where  Paul  expresses  the  words  of  Isa.  xxv.  8,  jrbs 
fIVjS  n^rsn  thus :  xmsito^y]  6  ^avaro^  slg  vTxog,  while  the  Septuagint 
is,  xarsVjsv  6  ^avarog  iVp^urfag.  He  takes  nvjS  in  the  Chaldee  sig- 
nification, as  Aquila  also  does  in  the  same  passage.  Of  the 
versions  which  have  sprung  from  the  Alexandrine,  see  below, 
§6. 

Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion,  of  whose  versions 
some  fragments  only  are  extant,  are  more  literal  translators, 
and  confine  themselves  more  closely  to  the  text,  than  the  au- 
thor of  the  Septuagint,  and  no  one  of  them  allows  himself  such 
arbitrary  freedoms  as  are  so  often  met  with  in  this  version. 
They  retain  also  the  figures  and  tropes  without  attempting  to 
explain  them  in  proper  language.  Their  translations  of  some 
places  of  this  kind,  which  have  been  preserved,  varying  from 
those  of  the  Septuagint,  have  been  already  introduced  in  or- 
der to  afford  a  comparison,  and  may   serve   as  examples. 


*  [  On  this  verse,  see  Magee  on  Atonement  and  Sacrifice,  No.  XLii. 
p.  227,  ss.  In  addition  to  the  valuable  observations  which  the  reader 
will  find  in  this  work,  I  would  just  remark,  that,  although  the  prophet 
speaks  directly  of  Christ  as  the  atoning  sacrifice  for  sin,  yet  his  language 
implies  also,  as  the  ultimate  effect  of  that  sacrifice,  the  removal  of  bodi- 
ly diseases,  together  with  every  evil  to  which  we  are  here  subjected. 
The  evangelist  may  therefore  very  properly  use  this  language  in  refe- 
rence to  the  healing  of  diseases,  although  this  is  but  a  small  part  of  the 
prophet's  view.   Tr.'\ 


A:l*2  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION" 

Pretty  often  they  all  three  agree,  and  in  sucli  cases  {5Jyrnma» 
ehus  and  Theodotion  follow  Aquila.  In  other  respects,  the 
etymological  character  of  Aquila,  which  is  also  anxiously  and 
even  absurdly  literal,  the  somewhat  discursive  freedom  of 
Symmachus,  and  the  manner  of  Theodotion  who  selects  with- 
out a  remarkable  knowledge  of  language,  are  well  known. 
At  times,  the  Septuagint  had  given  a  belter  version,  than  all  its 
three  successors,  as,  for  instance,  vn.  16,  'fp  nn«,  which  it  ren- 
ders (po(3r]j  where  Aquila  has  (uxxaivsi^,  Symmachus  iyxaxsTg, 
and  Theodotion  /S^aXuCtf/j.  See  the  note.  Theodotion  helps 
himself  occasionally  by  retaining  the  Hebrew  word,  as  in  u. 
20,  'a(pa|p;ps^wa,  lu.  24,  (psuyiK 


§2. 

The  Chaldee  Version. 

The  Chaldee  version  of  Isaiah  is  a  part  of  the  Targum  of 
Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  which  extends  through  all  the  former 
and  later  prophets,  Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Isaiah,  Je- 
remiah, Ezekiel,  and  the  minor  prophets.  Its  author  was  of 
Jerusalem,  and  a  pupil  of  Hillel,  who  was  a  fellow  pupil  of 
Simeon  the  just,  and  Gamaliel,  the  instructor  of  Paul,  and 
must  therefore  have  flourished  a  short  time  before  the  birth  of 
Christ.*^  Against  assigning  so  early  a  date  to  this' work,  Jo/jn 
MoaiN  and  Isaac  Vossius^^  were  the  first  to  object.  They 
maintained,  that  it  was  not  composed  until  after  the  Talmud, 


13  See  Baba  Bathra,  fol.  134,  col.  1.  Succa,  fol.  28,  col.  1.  The 
saying  that  he  received  his  interpretation  from  the  prophets  Haggai, 
Zachariah,  and  Malachi  themselves,  (in  the  natural  way,  by  tradition,) 
shows,  as  well  as  other  fables,  the  high  consideration  in  which  his  work 
must  have  been  held.  See  Megilloth^  I.  p.  3.  Carpzov.  Crit.  Sac. 
p.  450. 

t  3  Jo.  MoRim  Exercital,  Bibl  pp.  321.  ss.  Is.  Vossius  de  Sepluaginta 
interp.Ctip.2S. 


OF  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAH.  413 

Hnd  appealed  partly  to  certain  fabulous  interpolations,  as  in 
Isa.  X.  32 ;  and  partly  to  some  representations  contained  in  it, 
which  they  explained  as  subsequent  to  the  age  of  the  Talmud. 
In  a  later  period,  Eichhokn  and  Jahn  have  endeavoured  to 
place  Jonathan  as  lovv^  at  least  as  the  2nd  or  3d  century  after 
Christ,  rejecting  the  accounts  which  the  Jewish  writers  give 
of  him,  or  conjecturing  that  the  Talmudists  may  have  con- 
founded the  older  Jonathan  with  some  more  modern  writer 
of  the  same  name' .  They  have  also  questioned  the  unity  of 
this  work ;  and,  on  account  of  the  unequal  composition  of  its 
various  parts,  have  considered  it  as  the  production  of  many 
of  the  Rabbins'". 

The  reasons,  however,  which  have  been  alleged  against 
the  antiquity  of  this  Targum,  are  not  satisfactory.  "  Were 
it  as  old  as  its  advocates  maintain,  (says  Eichhorn,)  it  could 
not  have  been  unknown  to  the  fathers; — it  contains  fables 
which  came  into  circulation  in  a  later  age,  (see  Morin,  ubi 
sup.  ;) — it  attempts  to  remove  the  Messiah  from  the  places 
which  the  Christians  explained  of  him,  (Isa.  lhi.  lxhi.  1 — 5,) 
which  proves  that  controversies  against  the  Christians  were 
usual  at  the  time  of  its  composition  ; — not  to  urge  the  consi- 
deration, that  a  Chaldee  translation  was  unnecessary  at  the 
period  assigned  to  it."  The  first  and  last  of  these  reasons 
carry  their  own  refutation  along  with  them  :  for  the  fathers, 
generally,  had  no  knowledge  of  these  Jewish  works  ;  and,  the 
prevalence  of  the  Chaldee  dialect  in  the  time  of  Christ  shows, 
that  such  translations,  which  were,  at  the  same  time,  inter- 
pretations, were  then  undoubtedly  necessary.  That  the  ex- 
planation of  Isa.  LHi.  Lxm.  1,  ss.,  which  considers  these  places 
as  intended   to  apply  to  tho  Mcsaifih,  is  set  aside,  is  an  asser- 


I  4  Eichhorn,  Einleit.  in  das  A.  T.  1.  S.  455,  dritte  Ausg.  [11.  S.  83, 
Vierte,  ;  231.  Tr.]  Jahn*s  Einleit.  I.  S.  192.  [Part  I.  $  47,  p.  66.  Trans- 
lation.   Tr."] 

» '  To  the  same  purpose  Bertholdt,  II  S.  570.  Schmidt  also  gives 
the  author  the  appellation  of  Pseudo-Jonathan^  w  hich  is  applied  to  the 
translator  of  the  Pentateuch.  See  Chrisiologischc  Fragmente,  in  jBtW.  /. 
Exeges.  1.  S.  46. 


4l4  ON  The  interpretation 

tion  which  is  utterly  unfounded.  In  ch.  Liii.  it  is  expressly 
given  and  with  the  greatest  arbitrariness/^  And  if  this  is 
not  the  case  with  lxui.  1,  ss.,  there  is  no  reason  to  presume 
that  the  omission  arose  from  any  polemic  intention,  especially 
as  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  Christians  attached  any  extra- 
ordinary value  to  this  passage  as  one  referring  to  the  Messiah, 
although  it  is  imitated  in  a  representation  of  him  which  is 
given  in  the  Apocalypse,  xix.  13 — 15.  At  the  same  time,  the 
Targumist  agrees  with  the  Christians  in  most  of  the  other  pla- 
ces which  they  explained  of  the  Messiah,  particularly  chaps. 
Hc.  XI.  XLU.  The  introduction  of  the  later  Jewish  fables  would 
be  a  most  serious  difficulty,  were  it  possible  to  show  with  any 
certainty  the  time  of  their  origination.  Morin,  ubi  sup.,  appeals 
to  the  mention  which  is  made  of  Antichrist's  Armillus  in  Isa.  xi. 
4,  which  is  more  modern  than  the  Talmud,  (comp.  Deut.  xxxiv, 
3,  Pseudo-Jonathan.)  But  the  general  idea  of  Antichrist  is 
more  ancient  than  the  New  Testament,  and  that  the  name 
Armillus,  the  origin  of  which  is  unknown,  must  be  so  late,  is 
destitute  of  proof.  In  addition  to  the  mark  of  a  modern  age 
already  noticed,  I  have  found  the  following :  the  explanation 
of  Edom  in  Isa.  xxxiv.  9,  by  Rome,  Gomer  in  Ezek.  xxxvui. 
6,  by  j^^DD-^j,  that  is,  Germany,  (comp.  n>jd*ij  is  the  Jerusalem 
Targum  on  Gen.  x.  2,)  and  the  most  extravagant  additions  in 
Isa.  X.  32,  respecting  the  army  and  camp  of  Sennacherib, 
and  in  Judg.  v.  8,  respecting  that  of  Sisera.  But  not  one  of 
them  obliges  us  to  place  the  work  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  or  after  the  Talmud  ;  and  there  is  reason  to  think 
that  the  additions  may  be  interpolations,  as  they  are  entirely 


»»  It  was  inconceivable  to  the  author,  and  it  must  be  so  likewise  to 
every  one  who  has  really  read  this  version,  how  Eichhorn,  ubi  sup., 
should  have  got  this  account,  which  has  also  been  repeated  by  BsR- 
THOLDT,  (who,  nevertheless,  in  his  ChristologiaJiidaeorum,  p.  158,  ii  as  giv- 
en a  perfectly  correct  view,)  until  he  found  the  sources  of  these  and  of  the 
other  quotations  and  statements  in  C  arpzov's  Critica  Sacra,  p.  462.  Be- 
sides Carpzov,  complains  only  on  the  ground  of  his  view  respecting  this 
perversion  of  the  chapter  applied  to  the  Messiah,  without  making  that 
use  of  it  which  Eichhorn  has  done. 


OF  THE  4'ROPHET  iSAlAH.  415 

wanting  in  the  printed  text  of  the  Antwerp  Polyglot,  and  con- 
sequently were  wanting  also  in  the  manuscripts  used  in  form- 
ing that  text.  Until  stronger  proofs  therefore  are  alleged  for 
the  contrary,  I  shall  adhere  to  that  designation  of  its  age 
which  is  marked  out  by  tradition,  especially  as  the  Chaldee 
of  this  Targum  is  pure  and  similar  to  that  of  Onkelos,'  the 
doctrine  which  it  contains  respecting  the  Messiah  seems  to 
be  rather  earlier  than  the  New  Testament  than  later,  (see  be- 
low, or  rather,  comp.  Isa.  xlii.  in  the  Targum  with  Matt.  xn. 
17 — 21,)  and  no  definite  trace  of  the  government  being  over- 
thrown appears  in  it,  although  the  author  has  intermingled  re- 
ferences to  his  own  times/^ 

With  more  certainty  still  may  the  unity  of  this  Targum^ 
which  almost  all  late  critics  have  denied,^^  be  maintained. 
"  The  work,"  it  is  said,  "  is  altogether  unequal ;  the  historical 
books  are  translated  pretty  literally,  but  the  prophetical  are 
paraphrased,  and  additional  ideas  often  introduced.  This 
shows  the  version  to  have  been  composed  by  various  authors." 
Not  necessarily :  for  the  author  does  certainly  interpret  the 
historical  parts  of  the  prophetical  books,  (for  instance,  Isa* 


J  7  According  to  Eichhorn  and  Bertholdt  (ubi  sup.),  it  abounds  with 
foreign  words.  I  confess  that  I  have  never  been  able  to  discover  this 
multitude,  and  I  find  the  judgment  of  Carpzov  confirmed,  who  ascribes 
to  it  "  a  neatness  of  Chaldee  expression  and  a  purity  of  diction,  ap- 
proximating very  nearly  to  that  of  Onkelos,  and  but  little  inferior  to 
the  pure  and  polished  Chaldee  of  the  Bible."  Some  Greek  words  are 
indeed  to  be  met  with,  as  n>jjn  fjy^i^ocv,  for  instance,  in  ix.  13,  but  at 

most  in  the  same  proportion  as  in  Daniel  and  Ezra. 

>  8  I  once  thought  that  an  undoubted  reference  to  the  destruction  of 
the  temple  was  contained  in  liii.  5,  where  it  is  said  of  the  Messiah, 

t«in^i3?3  "ijDnN  M2}r\2  SnnxT  liw^pn  n'2  ^33^  ^m :— Ae  wirt &m'W 

the  holy  place  which  has  been  profaned  by  our  sin,  and  given  up  on  account 
of  our  transgressions.  But  it  is  more  natural  to  consider  the  author  as 
placing  himself  iu  the  situation  of  the  prophet,  and  referring  to  the  de- 
struction by  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  passage  in  v.  10,  v^bich  incul- 
cates the  paynent  of  tythes,  seems,  again,  to  presume  that  the  temple 
was  standing,  and  its  worship  &till  celebraied. 

1 9  Bertholdt  supposes  that  Jonathan  or  the  Pseudo-Jonathan  lived 
in  the  2nd  and  3d  centuries,  and  that  he  merely  collected  together 
and  reduced  to  order  more  ancient  fragments  of  Synagogue-Targums. 


4lt)  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION 

xxxvi — xxxix,  and  the  book  of  Jonah),  for  the  most  part,  in  a 
simple  and  hteral  manner,  while  he  paraphrases  the  poetical 
parts  of  the  historical  books,  (Judg.  v.  i  Sam.  n.  ii  Sam.  xxu. 
23,)  and  explains  the  figures  which  they  contain  :  so  that  this 
supposed  inequality  rather  seems  to  belong  to  his  manner. 
With  regard  to  the  degree,  moreover,  in  which  he  acts  the  pa- 
raphrast,  he  is  not  entirely  uniform  ;  so  that,  for  example,  Isa. 
1.  V.  xxvni.  especially,  are  greatly  paraphrastic,  and  other  chap- 
ters less  so  ;  but  it  would  be  very  unreasonable  to  ascribe  the 
work  on  this  account,  to  various  authors,  since  the  same  thing 
is  true  of  the  Septuagint,  which  sometimes  varies  in  the  same 
chapter,  as  in  i,  where,  v,  22,  the  figures  of  silver  and  wine 
are  retained,  while  in  v.  25,  those  of  dross  and  tin  are  aban- 
doned. This  want  of  uniformity  is  rather  to  be  attributed  to 
the  inequality  and  variable  maimer  of  the  translator.  But  it  is 
said  further,  that  "  for  certain  Hebrew  forms  of  speech,  ex- 
pressions occur  in  the  former  prophets  which  are  not  em- 
ployed in  the  later,  although  the  same  forms  of  speech  are 
contained  in  the  original.  In  the  former  prophets,  idols 
are  almost  constantly  denominated  n^dd;;  mj^is,  error  gentium, 
(i  Sam.  VI.  5.  i  Kings  xiv.  9,)  and  enemies  are  named  ^S^3 
ii^22ii  (i  Kings  111.  11.  viii.  46.  n  Sam.  xviii.  19,)  while 
if  these  expressions  are  ever  to  be  met  with  in  the  latter,  they 
are  exceedingly  rare  indeed."^''  If  these  two  examples  could 
justify  any  general  conclusion,  it  would  be  the  very  contrary  ; 
for  n^r.M  (x'Dd;;  is  of  no  importance,  and  only  occurs  in  i 
Kings,)  is  also  in  the  prophets  the  predominant,  and  probably 
the  only    designation  of  idols,  (see  Isa.  i.  29.    ii.  6,  7,  18, 


3  0  Thus  Eichhorn  literally,!.  S.452.  Or.  II.  S.  67.]  Comp.  Carpzov. 
Crit.  Sac.  ubi  sup.  8).  "  He  has  certain  periphrat-es  and  descriptions 
peculiar  to  himself,  which  he  almost  every  where  employs:  as,  for  in- 
stance, when  he  very  often  calls  idols  a'^O'OV  »"*1.I^tO  ^^^r  gentium;  i 
Sam.  VI.  5.  i  Kings  xiv.  5;  or,  for  the  Hebrew  D"'3"''1J<>  enemies,  uses 
the  phrase  N':331  'Si^Uj  authors  of  tnmities,  \  Kings,  ui.  11.  vui.  46.  u 
Sam.  xvm.  19,  &c."  But  Carpzov  very  correctly  mentions  these  phrases 
as  general  expressions  of  the  whole  work,  in  the  former  and  later  pro- 
phets; and  the  above  conclusion,  which  is  not  Carpzov's,  is  undoubted- 
ly drawn,  because  he  had  adduced  no  examples  from  the  later  prophets- 


or  THE  rUOPHET  ISaIAH.  41*? 

20.  XIX.  1,  &c.)  and  K^an  '7j;a  the  usual  translation  of  T)h, 
(see  Isa.  i.  24.  n.  8.  Lxii.  8.  lxiii.  10.  Jer.  xliv.  30,)  although 
rmfD  does  also  occur.  (See  Jer.  vi.  25.)  But,  in  addition 
to  these,  other  instances  of  uniformity  are  to  be  met 
with,  which  are  far  more  remarkable  and  conclusive.  Isa. 
XXXVI — xxxix  agrees  literally  with  ii  Kings  xvm.  13,  ss« 
as  far  as  the  agreement  exists  in  the  original ;  Isa.  n.  2 — 4 
also  with  M icha  v.  1 — 3,  which  is  very  different  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint.  In  Nah.  i.  1,  NJy?  is  understood  of  the  raising  of  the 
curse  cup,  as  in  Isa.  xui.  1.  xv.  1.  xix.  1.  xxi.  1.  xxn.  1.  xxm.  1 ; 
^^ty\_  is  rendered  xrs^  in  Jon.  i.  3.  Jer.  n.  16.  xxm.  1,  6,  10. 
Lx.  9.  Lxvi.  19.  Ezek.  xxvu.  12.  xxxni.  13,  instead  of  which  it  is 
0^D-»o  in  Ps.  Lxxn.  20,  and  B^^iJ^^n  in  Deut.  x.  4.)  In  Isaiah  the 
trees,  and  particularly  cedars,  are  often  explained  by  kings  and 
princes,  (see  u.  13.  xiv.  8.  xvm.  5,)  and  in  the  same  manner  does 
the  translator  interpret  i  Kings  iv.  33  :  "  and  Solomon  spake  of 
trees  from  the  cedar  that  is  in  Lebanon,  &c."  by  :  "  he  pro- 
phesied of  the  kings  of  the  house  of  David,  his  successors, 
&c."  The  very  extraordinary  statement,  that  the  sun  should 
shine  343  times  7x7x7)  clearer,  in  Isa.  xxx.  26,  is  contain- 
ed also  in  1 1  Sam.  xxm.  4.  And  the  addition  also  respecting 
Sennacherib*s  army  and  camp  in  Isa.  x.  14,  and  that  of  Sise- 
ra's  in  Judg.  v.  8,  (if  they  be  genuine,)  have  great  resem- 
blance to  each  other.  To  avoid  being  tedious,  I  abstain  from 
introducing  any  other  instances ;  but,  if  some  passages  which 
have  been  interpolated  are  excluded,  I  must  contend,  that 
with  the  exception  of  unavoidable  varieties  in  particular 
parts,  the  whole  translation  shows  an  uniformity  which  proves 
it  to  be  the  work  of  one  author. 

But  it  is  proper  to  proceed  from  discussions  of  this  nature, 
which  are  only  introductory  and  incidental,  to  the  character 
of  this  version,  a  subject  which  is  particularly  connected  with 
my  purpose.  If  it  be  compared  with  the  other  Targums,  it 
must  be  placed,  in  respect  to  an  exact  erception  and  repre- 
sentation of  the  sense,  between  Onkelos  and  the  more  mo- 
dern Targums  ;  if  it  be  compared  with  the  Alexandrine 
version,  although  it  may  probably  display  a  more  accurate 
knowledge  of  language,  yet.  in  consequence  of  a  false  me- 


418 


ON  THU  INTERFRETATION 


thod  of  interpretation,  it  indulges  itself  much  more  largely  m 
arbitrary  expositions,  especially  where  chronological  and 
doctrinal  points  are  concerned,  and  make  much  more  arbitra- 
ry paraphrases.  Its  character  in  general  may  be  learned 
from  the  following  notices. 

1.  This  paraphrast  frequently  understands  his  text  philolo- 
gically  and  exegetically  with  perfect  correctness,  and  ex- 
presses it,  especially  in  historical  discourses,  with  literal  accu- 
racy ;  but  where  the  language  is  figurative,  he  attempts,  in 
his  paraphrastic  manner,  to  elucidate  it,  either  by  explaining 
the  figures  or  by  introducing  an  additional  observation.  For 
example  :  i.  8,  "  as  a  cottage  in  a  vineyard ;"  the  Targum 
adds,  "  after  the  vintage  ;" — i.  21,  "  harlot ;"  Targ.  idola- 
tress ;— 1.  25,  "thy  lead  ;"  ["  tin,"  Eng.  Tr.]  Targ.  thy  guilt  : 
— In  n.  13,  ss.  all  the  figures  are  explained  ;  the  cedars  and 
fir-trees  are  interpreted  of  princes,  the  walls  and  towers  of 
the  inhabitants  of  towers  and  fortified  places,  the  ships  of 
wealthy  merchants  traversing  the  seas. — In  v.  1 — 6,  the  para- 
ble is  altogether  removed,  and  in  place  of  it  a  prolix  inter- 
pretation is  substituted  : — in  v.  17,  for  "  sheep,"  ["  lambs," 
Eng.  Tr  ]  the  Targum  has  righteous  : — in  vu.  3,  for  :  "  the 
Syrians  stand  in  Ephraim,"  [v.  2,  "  Syria  is  confederate  with 
Ephraim,"  Eng.  Tr.]  the  Targum  is :  the  king  of  Syria  is 
associated  with  the  king  of  Israel : — x.  14,  "  there  was  none 
that  opened  the  mouth  or  peeped  ;''  Targ.  spoke  a  word : — 
xxu.  23,  Targ.  /  will  appoint  him  as  a  true  commander  in  a  de- 
fended place  ;  V.  24,  and  on  him  will  all  the  nobles  of  his  fa- 
ther's house  support  themselves,  children  and  children's  chil- 
dreni  honorable  and  ignoble,  from  the  priests  in  the  Ephod  to 
the  Levites  who  play  on  the  harp.  He  translates  very  happily 
xxu.  22,  "  the  key  of  the  house  of  David  will  1  lay  upon  his 
shoulder,"  by  :  /  will  give  into  his  hand. 

2.  But  not  unfrequently  his  exposition  is  altogether  arbi- 
trary, the  grammatical  interpretation  is  abandoned,  the  fi- 
gures erroneously  explained,  and  although  the  very  words  of 
the  text  may  be  repeated  in  the  paraphrase,  this  is  done  in 
the  most  arbitrary  connexion,  and  sometimes  with  an  over- 
whelming flood  of  fictitious  trifling.     Chap.  i.   6,   "  from  the 


OP    THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  419 

scAe  of  the  foot  even  unto  the  head,  there  is  no  soundness 
in  it  ;"  Targ.  from  the  populace  even  to  the  honorable,  no  one 
is  perfect  in  the  fear  of  God.  (But  the  prophet  is  not  speak- 
ing of  the  immorality  of  the  nation,  but  of  its  unhappy  poli- 
tical condition.)  Vs.  24,  '2^^  ^nj?*  ["I  will  avenge  me  of 
mine  enemies,"  Eng.  Tr.]  Targ.  Jerusalem  will  I  comfort, 
but  wo  to  the  zoicked,  when  I  rise  up  to  hold  a  court  of  ven- 
geance on  the  enemies  of  my  people.  He  has  not  understood 
the  meaning  of  DhJ,  and  has  therefore  availed  himself  of  a 
paraphrase.  III.  24,  ^sr  nnn  ^3,  Targ.  this  vengeance  will  be 
taken  on  them,  because  they  sinned  with  their  beauty.  VII. 
3,  ^J3.  3WO«Bf',  Targ.  the  remaining  disciples,  those  who 
have  not  sinned  and  those  who  have  turned  from  their  sins. 
He  takes  ^33  for  sons  equivalent  to  disciples.  The  proper 
names  he  frequently  interprets.  For  example :  v.  6,  '?^3W, 
[^Tabeal,^  Targ.  he  who  will  please  us  ;  (comp.  ii  Sam.  xvii. 
7) :" — IX.  20,  "  they  shall  eat  every  man  the  flesh  of  his  own 
arm  ;"  Targ.  shall  plunder  the  treasures  of  his  nearest  neigh- 
bour : — XI.  14,  "  they  fly  together  on  the  shoulders  of  the 
Phihstines ;"  Targ.  thei^  associate  with  one  shoulder,  (i.  e. 
unanimously,  see  in  the  iieb.  Zeph.  iii.  9,)  in  order  to  beat 
the  Philistines.  It  is  plain,  that  he  is  only  intent  on 
bringing  in  the  original  word,  without  any  anxiety  whe- 
ther correctly  or  not.  xiv.  14,  "I  will  ascend  above 
the  heights  of  the  clouds ;"  Targ.  over  all  the  people  : 
— xvm.  1,  d;S3P  Sv^X  y;iK,  Targ.  the  country,  whither  ships  come 
from  foreign  lands,  like  an  eagle,  flying  with  its  wings  : — xix. 
10,  »fl3  'DiH  "^^z^  'Wp  So,  ["  all  that  make  sluices,  and  ponds  for 
fish."  Eng.  Tr.]  Targ.  •TffSjSia^  k^d  ynrp^  Hiiio  \n2v  im  im 
it  will  be  a  place  where  they  make  lakes,  ponds  of  water  each 
one  for  himself : — ^xxi.  8,  nnK  «Jp'i  ["  and  he  cried,  a  lion." 
Eng.  Tr.]  Targ.  the  prophet  spake  ;  /  hear  the  voice  of  the 


>  1  By  means  of  an  operation  of  this  kind,  he  excludes  Malachi  from 
the  list  of  tke  prophets,  since  he  explains  the  name  okSo  in  Mai.  1. 1, 
thus:  KisD  «1TV  H^OB^  *!?pn"?  '^!?SDi  wiy  meuenger,  who  is caUtd  Eitti 
th*  scribe^ 


42f)  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION 

hosts,  7vho  come  on  in  their  armour,  like  a  lion  : — ^xxi.  10, 
'-?;^4  1?  ''?i?:^?»  ["  my  threshing,  and  the  corn  (lit.  son)  of  my 
floor."  Eng.  Tr.  j  Targ.  the  kings,  accustomed  to  wage  war,  will 
come  against  her,  in  order  to  plunder  her,  like  the  countryman, 
who  is  accustomed  to  thresh  the  floor  :*"  xxi.  12,  "  from 
Seir  they  call  to  me  ;"  Targ.  from  heaven  he  calls  to  me,  the 
idea  being  drawn  probably  from  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  where 
Seir  has  been  taken  as  the  dwelling  of  Jehovah :— xxii.  18, 
in3  nsjy  -"ISH;  ^^jV,  [  "  he  will  surely  violently  turn  and  toss 
thee  like  a  ball."  Eng.  Tr.  ]  Targ.  ^J'Spl]  i^nsjxa  ni  ^^p  ''•yjn 
^pD  i?a^9  35*1  ^b^^i  he  will  take  away  from  thee  thy  turban, 
and  the  enemy  will  surround  thee,  like  an  enclosing  wall ;— - 
XXVI II.  10,  "):\  )p^^  ^p  ^y*?  ly  '3,  f/' for  precept  upon  precept, 
line  upon  line,  &c."  Eng.  Tr.]  To-rg.  when  they  were  com- 
manded to  do  the  law  (iif),  they  would  not  do  what  was  com- 
manded them.  The  prophets  prophesied  to  them,  that,  if  they 
were  converted,  their  sins  should  be  forgiven  them^  but  they  dis- 
regarded the  words  of  the  prophets,  walked  according  to  the  de- 
sire of  their  souls,  and  had  no  inclination  to  obey  the  law.  They 
expected  (ID  from  njp)  that  idolatry  should  be  established 
among  them,  and  they  waited  not  on  the  service  of  my  holy 
temple.  Little  iyv})  in  their  eyes  was  my  sanctuary  to  pray 
THERE  (DkO-  Little  in  their  eyes  was  my  dwelling  there: 
— XXX.  7,  n2»^  on  ^n-*  nxrS  ^^tfn^  pS,  [  "  therefore  have  I 
cried  concerning  this,  their  strength  is  to  sit  still."  Eng.  Tr.  ] 
Targ.  therefore  I  struck  (as  if  from  n;jp)  many  of  them  dead, 
armed  men  sent  I  upon  them  ;  for  which  translation  no  found- 
ation is  discoverable.  Further  examples  may  be  seen  under 
nos.  4  and  6. 

3.  For  the  most  part  he  retains  the  geographical  names,  like 
Onkelos,  and  seldom  substitutes  the  modern  terms,  but  then 


3  2  It  is  necessary  expressly  to  warn  every  one  who  wishes  to  consult 
this  Targum  nor  to  trust  the  exceedingly  bad  Latin  translation  in  the 
Polyglots.  This  verse,  for  example,  is  thus  translated  :  reges,  qui  con- 
sueti  sunt  ad  ineundum  proelium,  venient  contra  eani:  ut  diripiant  earn, 
sicut  plaustrum  artificia  ad  triturandam  aream.   The  Chaldee  is  :   p^^D 

»;«nN  n;  a^npS  jD^sn  *n3«3  *<33oS  Thv  t^^".«3;jp wi^^S  r?w«^ 


OF  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAH.  4Qi 

he  is  often  correct.  Examples :  |^v,  xix.  13,  and  xxx.  4, 
OJKO  ;  -Y-,  XIX.  13,  D^3D,  {Memphis) ;  |^'3,  xxxiii.  9,  Nah.  i.  4, 
]2nD,  BatancBa,  (see  the  note  on  ii.  13 ;)  ^^p,  xi.  11,  S^3  ;  and, 
not  unsuitably  at  least,  ojn,  xxx.  4,  Djgrin  {Daphne).  Al- 
though he  translates  '^i3  in  xi.  1 1  by  nn,  /nf/m,  it  must  be 
remembered,  that  by  the  ancients  Ethopia  and  India  were 
often  interchanged  in  common  life  *  *  *  t — Occasionally, 
he  has  rendered  a  geographical  name  as  an  appellative,  as  he 
has  also  done  with  the  names  of  persons.     See  lx.  6. 

4.  I^ike  many  ancient  translators,  (the  Alexandrine  and 
Saadias  particularly,)  he  very  willingly  rejects  those  anthro- 
popathic  terms,  [in  other  words ;  expressions  used  in  relation 
to  the  Deity  which  are  founded  on  human  analogies.  Tr.] 
and  other  language  zohich  might  give  offence  :  both  of 
which  appear  to  him  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  God, 
and  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Examples :  i.  18,  God  says, 
"  let  us  reason  together :"  Targ.  'P'JfJ..  j?  p;^^^  ask  of  me  : — 
iii.  17;  he  "  will  discover  their  secret  parts;"  larg.  remove 
their  glory.  Comp.  xxviu.  7.  8. — vi.  1,  "  his  train  filled  the 
temple  :'*  Targ.  the  temple  was  filled  with  the  splendor  of  his 
glory  : — v.  6,  "  a  live  coal  in  his  hand,  which  he  had  taken 
with  the  tongs  from  off  the  altar ;"  Targ.  in  his  mouth  was  an 
oracle  which  he  received  from  the  divine  majesty  (Shecinah,) 
on  the  throne  in  heaven  above  over  the  altar  : — x.  6, the  rod  in  his 
hand,  instrument  of  his  indignation  ;  Targ.  the  messenger  sent 
by  him,  for  a  curse  against  them. — Neither  does  he  bear  with 
the  exoression,  to  see  God,  (see  above,  p.  409),  but  substitutes 
for  it  in  xxxvni.  11,  /  shall  appear  before  God.    So  also  i.  12. 

5.  Another  characteristic  of  this  version  is,  that  it  intro- 
duces additions  to  the  text,  some  ot  which,  as  connected  with 
its  paraphrastic  manner,  have  been  exhibited  under  nos.  1  and 
3.  Among  these  additions,  there  are  some  which  are  con- 
stantly recurring,  as  r.i^  ^p-;,  the  prophet  saith,  xxxv.  3.  xlvui. 
16,  LViu.  L  LXL  1.  Lxn.  10.  lxui.  7.  Less  frequently  they  are 
longer,  as  in  x.  32,  that  relating  to  Semiacherib's  army  drink- 
ing up  the  Jordan,  &c.   See  above. 

t  [  Three  lines  are  here  omitted.     Jr.] 


4^3  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION 

6.  Much  more  abundantly  than  the  Alexandrine  translator, 
does  he  arbitrarily  introduce  into  his  paraphrase  views  which 
belong  to  a  later  period  than  that  of  his  author;  Rabbinical 
sayings,  and  the  Jewish  theology  of  his  own  time,  and  often  in 
such  a  way  as  to  show  too  clearly  the  Rabbin  of  the  Phari- 
sees, and  the  learned  scribe.  Examples :  i.  15 ;  "  when 
ye  spread  forth  your  hands;"  Targ.  when  the  priests 
spread  forth  their  hands  to  pray  for  you  /  as  if  the  prayer 
of  the  priest  alone  could  in  general  prevail  with  God  : — ^v. 
10 ;  he  adds  here :  on  account  of  the  sin  of  not  paying  the 
iythes  : — ix.  15  ;  here,  in  place  of  "  the  prophet  that  teach- 
eth  lies,"  and  who  "  is  the  tail,"  he  substitutes,  the  scribe  who 
explains  falsely,  (How  confident  was  this  learned  scribe  in 
the  correctness  of  his  own  interpretations  !  And  how  charac- 
teristic of  the  different  periods  of  prophecy  and  of  Rabbi- 
nism,  that  the  author  of  this  gloss  makes  a  false  prophet,  and 
the  translator  a  false  interpreter,  the  tail,  in  other  words,  the 
very  lowest  of  the  people!)  In  general  scn'6fi5  are  promis- 
cuously introduced,  especially  for  prophets. — xxvui.  7 ;  in- 
stead of,  "  priests  and  prophets  err  through  strong  drink 
*  .  .  .  .  they  err  in  vision,  {prophesying,)  they  stumble  in 
(pronouncing)  judgment,  the  Targum  h-diS,  priests  onrf  scribes 
are  intoxicated  with  old  wine they  are  turned  to  de- 
licate food,  and  err  in  pronouncing  judgment.  (Thus  the 
translator  every  where  brings  the  charge  of  luxuriously  fur- 
nished tables  against  the  Rabbins.) — Better  still  in  v.  8,  "  their 
tables  are  full  oi  filthy  vomit,  there  is  no  place  more  ;"  Targ. 
all  tables  are  full  of  unclean  and  abominable  food,  there  is 
no  place  where  there  is  not  some  plundered  good  thing.  (It 
was  necessary  that  the  offence  which  the  laity  must  have 
taken  at  such  unlawful  and  extravagant  indulgences  of  the 
Jewish  clergy  should  be  removed,  especially  since  swines' 
flesh  on  their  table  was  sufficiently  obnoxious.)  See  also 
XXIX.  10,  XXX.  10.  A  strong  trace  of  national  pride  appears 
in  translating  **  the  stars  of  God"  in  xiv.  13,  by  the  people  of 
God^  suggested  perhaps  by  the  antecedent  representation  in 
Dan.  vui.  10.—  In  vi.  1,  instead  of  "  the  year  that  king  Uzziah 
diied,"  he  has,  with  Saadias  and  others,  the  year  that  he  became 


OF  THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  423 

LEPROUS ; — in  x.  32,  he  has  in  mind  the  fabulous  account  of 
Abraham's  deliverance  from  a  burning  furnace,  in  which  he  had 
been  thrown  as  a  destroyer  of  idolatry  ;*  in  xxvui.  1,  he  intro- 
duces the  earthquake  under  Uzziah,  in  xlix.  15,  the  golden  calf, 
in  LXi.  1,  Elias. — ^Amongthe  points  of  Jewish  theology  which 
the  author  has  incorporated  in  his  version,  the  views  which  he 
gives  respecting  the  Messiah  are  of  real  interest  and  impor- 
tance in  reference  to  the  history  of  Jewish  doctrines.  He  in- 
terprets numerous  passages  of  the  Messiah,  and  for  the  most 
part,  in  harmony  with  the  New  Testament.'"  "  The  branch 
of  Jehovah,"  in  iv.  2,  he  explains  by  the  Messiah,  (no  doubt 
according  to  the  phraseology  in  Jeremiah  and  Zachariah,  see 
the  note  on  that  place ;)  "  the  fruit  of  the  earth,"  (land,)  by, 
those  who  keep  the  law  ;  and  v.  3  runs :  who  is  written  for  eter- 
nal life,  sees  the  consolation  of  Israel  :  that  is,  the  time  of 
the  Messiah,  (comp.  Dan.  xn.  i.) — ix.  6,  is  thus  translated :  he 
takes  the  law  upon  himself  in  order  to  keep  it  perfectly,  (Matt. 
V.  17.)  and  he  is  named  on  the  side  of  him,\  whose  counsel  is 
wonderful,  (on  the  side)  of  God:^  a  hero  remaining  for 
ever,  from  whom  much  felicity  will  come  over  us  in  his  days. — 
XI.  1,  ss.  According  to  this  passage,  the  spirit  of  prophesying 
{v,  2.)  rests  on  the  Messiah:  he  will  slay  (r.  4)  with  his 
speech  the  wicked  Armillus  (the  Antichrist,)  really  righteous 
men  will  surround  him,  {v.  5.) — In  xiv.  29,  he  understands  the 
Messiah  by  the  cerastes  that  should  spring  out  of  the  serpent's 
root,  (that  is,  the  son  of  Jesse,)  and  also  in  xxvin.  5,  by  Jeho- 


*  [  Two  lines  omitted.     Tr.  ] 

a  3  The  greater  part  of  these,  together  with  those  which  Jonathan 
translated  from  the  other  books,  may  be  found  in  Buxtorf.  Lex. 
Chal.etTalm.  Col  1269,  ss. 

t  [  Literally,  from  the  Chaldee :  and  he  is  named  from  before  Mm, 
&c.  Dip  I  p.    Tr.] 

a  4  The  word  iffhvit  God,  in  this  passage,  may,  according  to  the  usage 

of  the  language,  be  taken  as  the  object,  and  then  the  Messiah  will  be 
called  Gorf.  But  this  would  be  altogether  at  variance  with  the  Jewish 
theology,  and  to  this,  in  all  the  elevated  representations  of  him,  (see 
Bertholdt,  Christologia  Judseorum,  §  22,)  it  will  be  difficult  to  adduce 
one  parallel  instance. 


424  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION 

vah  Iiimself,  who  should  be  an  ornament  of  the  people.^ — 
The  "  servant  of  God,"  in  xLn.  1,  he  explains  of  the  Messiakf 
(»ry'2fp  ^n^j?),  and  almost  all  in  the  future,  exactly  as  in  Matt, 
xii.  17 — ^21,  (see  my  commentary,)  so  that  he  considers  this 
place  as  prophetic  of  a  Messiah,  who  should  be  the  comforter 
of  the  poor,  and  the  instructor  of  the  heathen.  In  the  same 
way  does  he  explain  "  servant  of  God,"  in  xtin.  10,  which,  in 
other  places,  he  interprets  of  the  people,  and  often  in  the  same 
section.  So  especially,  in  the  celebrated  passage  lu.  13 — lui, 
where  what  is  said  of  the  depressed  state  of  the  servant  of 
God  is  referred  to  the  people,  (lii.  14,  lhi.  2,  3,)  and  what 
is  announced  respecting  his  elevation,  or  at  least  what  he  thus 
considers,  is  applied  to  the  Messiah,  (lii.  13,  15.  lii i.  4,  ss,) 
The  grammatical  interpretation  is  here  deserted  more  than  in 
any  other  place  ;  and  that  most  celebrated  chapter  ^  ap- 
pears in  reality  to  have  been,  in  the  time  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, a  very  important  source  of  views  relating  to  the  Mes- 
siah. He  illustrates  thus:  *  Israel,  indeed,  was  long  poor  and 
despised,  and  waited  long  for  the  Messiah  (lii.  14.  liii.  3), 
but  he  will  come,  will  scatter  the  heathen  (lii.  15),  will  asto- 
nish the  kings,  and  Israel  will  flourish  and  bloom  before  him, 
like  a  tree  by  the  water  brooks,  (liii.  2 ;)  for  he  will  intercede 
for  the  sins  of  the  people,  and  God  will  pardon  them  for  his 
sake,  when  the  people  become  obedient  to  his  instruction  (v, 
4,  6,  7).  He  builds  up  again  the  holy  place,  which  was  polluted 


3  *   Whether  by  anointed  of  Israel,  in  xvi.  1,5,  he  means  the  Messiah, 
is  uncertain,  since  this  expression  is  elsewhere  used  of  earthly  kings. 

2  Respecting  Jonathan's  interpretation  of  this  passage,  see  Di<  Wette 
de  morte  Jesu  Christi  expiatnria,  pp.  70.  ss.  Respecting  the  more  an- 
cient Jews,  who,  according  to  the  accounts  of  the  more  modern,  have 
explained  this  section  of  the  Messiah,  see,  as  a  supplement  to  the  literary 
history  of  chapter  liii,  wnich  is  given  in  my  commentary,  (Th.  3.  S.  160, 
ff.)  ScHOTTGEN  deM«^ssia,  in  liis  Horae  Heb.  et  Talmud.  V.  II.  pp  181, 
ss.,  EisEiVMENGt.R  entdccktcs  Judenthum,  II.  S.  757,  Hulsi-  Theologia 
Judaica,  pp.  321,  ss.  That  the  idea  of  a  suffering  and  dying  Messiah  can, 
in  no  way,  be  derived  from  this  place  of  Jonathan,  as  Staudlin,  (G6t- 
TiNG.  Theol.  Bibliothek,  Th.  1.  S.  241,)  and  Bertholdt,  (Christologia 
Judaeorum,  $  29,)  suppose,  has  been  shown  by  De  Wette,  nbi  sup 
Oomjiftre  also  his  Bibl.  Theologie,  ^  201. 


OP  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAH.  435 

by  our  sins  (5) ;  he  leads  the  princes  of  the  nations  to  slaugh- 
ter (7),  and  the  wicked  into  hell.  The  remainder  of  his  peo- 
ple he  purifies,  and  expiates  their  sins  (10).  Then  they  live 
long  in  Messiah's  kingdom,  see  sons  and  grandsons,  are  deli- 
vered from  the  dominion  of  the  heathen,  become  victors  over 
their  enemies'  (11,  12).  In  v.  5,  the  discourse  is  expressly  of 
his  doctrine  :  through  his  doctrine  are  we  made  abundantli/ 
happy,  and  when  we  obey  his  zoords  our  sins  xoill  be  forgiven  us, 
Comp.  XLii.  3,  4,  and  xi.  2.  In  this  and  in  the  intercession 
for  the  people  which  is  ascribed  to  him,  we  have  evidently 
the  prophetic  and  high-priestly  offices,  which,  together  with 
the  kingly,  the  Jews  thus  attached  to  the  character  of  the 
Messiah,  and  which,  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  find 
committed  to  Christ. — Other  references  to  Jewish  theology 
are  the  mention  of  the  second  death  in  xxri.  14,  which  the 
damned  undergo  in  another  world,  (comp.  the  Jerus.  Targ. 
on  Deut.  xxxm.  6.  Rev.  ii.  11,  and  Wetstein  in  loc,  xx.  6, 
14.  XXI.  8.) ;  the  explanation  of  xxv.  33,  by  hell,  (Gehenna) ; 
and  the  frequent  mention  of  the  Schecinah  (nJOB'),  xl.  22* 
Lvii.  15,  and  elsewhere. 

The  text,  which  Jonathan  had  before  him,  was  on  the  whole, 
the  masoretic,  and  with  this  text  he  agrees  also  m  the  vowels, 
the  cause  of  which  mriy  be,  that  the  authors  of  the  points  were 
led  by  the  paraphrjases,  or  that  the  same  interpretation  which 
they  exhibit  was  established  as  early  as  the  time  of  Jonathan. 
Yet  there  are  also  varieties  both  in  the  consonants  and  vowels. 
For  example  :  ni.  12,  D^i^^  ;  Targ.  xjin  'y^,  creditors,  (as  if  it 
were  d\'j)  :— ni.  6,  nW'^o;  Targ.  nva^D,  after  the  reading, 
rh^'o^ : — XIX.  18  ;  here  at  onnn  Tjr,  for  which  also  onnn  y^;  is 
read,  both  readings  are  expressed ;  3"inpS  xTPj^-n  wmi  n^3  ^r^')\>^ 
the  city  [Bethshemesh],  city  \  house],  of  the  sun,  (Heliopolis), 
which  will  be  destroyed, — from  Din,  the  sun,  and  D"»n,  to  de- 
stroy. The  explanation  is  founded  on  Jer.  xlui.  13,  and  al- 
though it  may  have  had  a  controversial  bearing  against  the 
Alexandrine  Jews,  (see  above,  p.  408,)  yet  it  lays  the  founda- 
tion for  other  results. — u.  6,  S^yf\  n^3  ^rpv_  rsmm  ^2,  ["  there- 
fore thou  hast  forsaken  thy  people,  the  house  of  Jacob."  Eng. 
Tr.]  is  translated  in  the  Targum,  thus :  you  have  deserted  the 

54 


4^ 


UN   TilE  INTERPRETATION 


dreadful  one,  the  strong,  zoho  delivered  you,  house  of  Israel.  It 
is  probable  that  after  ^r^V  he  read  ^iiv,  (comp.  Deut.  xxxii. 
15,)  which  reading  would  give  a  very  suitable  sense.  How- 
ever, he  has  elsewhere  allowed  himself  too  great  liberties,  to 
permit  us  to  attach  much  weight  to  this  supposition. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  is  evident,  that  this  version, 
although  of  real  advantage,  should  be  used  with  great  cau- 
tion, and  it  appears  to  me  that  Dr.  Rosenmiiller  has  depend- 
ed too  often  OB  its  interpretations. 


That  there  must  have  been  a  Jerusalem  Targum  on  the 
prophets,  is  plain  from  a  fragment,  which  Bruns  in  Cod. 
Kennic.  154,  found  on  Zech.  xii.  10.  Whether  this  is  the 
same  with  that  which  Asseman  deposited  in  the  Vatican  libra- 
ry, I  am  unable  to  determine. 


The  Syriac  Version. 

Among  the  old  versions,  the  third  place  in  point  of  time 
belongs  to  the  Peshito  Syriac,  which,  resting  on  the  authority 
of  the  two  last,  and,  moreover,  conducted  by  more  correct 
principles  of  interpretation  and  translation,  meets  the  de- 
mands of  a  correct  and  faithful  translator  far  better  than 
those,  and  nearly  in  the  same  manner,  as  Symmachus  and 
Theodotion.  The  author  translates  from  the  Hebrew  text, 
not  without  knowledge  of  the  language,  with  selected  use  of 
the  Alexandrine  version,  more  rarely  of  the  Chaldee,  but 
frequently  also  independently  of  both,  agreeably  to  his  own 
feeling  and  judgment.  Where  he  does  not  happen  to  follow 
the  Septuagint,  he  preserves  the  figures  and  tropes,  and  from 
arbitrary  introduction  of  opinions  he  is  freer  than  almost  any 
other  ancient  translator,  so  that  the  name  of  Peshito,  that  is, 


OF    THE    I'ROPHET    ISAlAU.  427 

ihe  simple  and  faithful^"  is  most  appropriately^applied  to  his 
work.  Since  also  the  cliaracter  of  both  tongues  favours 
this  close  approximation,  the  imitation  is  sometimes  to  be 
called  masterly.  As  a  proof  of  what  has  been  said,  so  far 
as  this  may  be  shown  in  particular  instances,  the  reader  is  re* 
ferred  to, 

1.  Some  places  where  he  has  openly  followed  the  Septua- 
gint,  even  in  cases  of  free  and  somewhat  arbitrary  translation. 
Compare  in  the  Hebrew,  Septuagint  and  Syriac,  the  following 
places  :  i.  22,  25.  n.  20.  ni.  17.  vu.  20.  ix.  13.  xxx,  4, 
20.  Lui.  2.* — Still,  in  such  cases  he  much  more  frequently 
abandons  the  Alexandrine  version :  see  v.  17.  vi.  1.  ix.  8, 
10.  x.  14,  16.  XI.  4,  14.  xxn.  23.  xxvni.  8.  xxui.  17.  He 
preserves  the  expression  to  see  God  in  the  two  places  (i.  12. 
xxxvni.  12.)  where  it  occurs.  Yet  he  agrees  with  Theodo- 
tion,  for  instance  in  xxvm.  6. 

2.  Less  observed  is  his  agreement  with  the  Chaldee,  which, 


3  7  In  the  place  of  this  usual  interpretation,  which,  we  shall  see  is 
also  the  correct  one,  Dr.  Bertholdt  (Einieit.  11.  s.  593)  has  brought 
forward  another,  according  to  which  it  signifies  the  extended^  commonly 
•used,  and  is  equivalent  to  koivi],  vulgata.  He  adduces  the  Chaldee  ex- 
pressions, t3icy3  jnjQj  common  custom,  tJv.i'B  Vlf  commonmanner.  But 
in  the  alleged  cases  the  idea  of  simple  lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  word, 
as  Buitorf  has  expressly  remarked  in  his  Chaldee  Lexicon  ;  and,  which 
is  chiefly  important,  this  change  of  the  idea  is  inappropriate  in  the  pre- 
sent instance,  since  t3^{£'»3  is  constantly  used  of  literal  interpretatJons 
of  Scripture,  in  opposition  to  the  Medrashin,  allegorical  and  B*ysticai 
interpretations.  This  is  its  meaning  in  this  case,  as  is  shfw'n  also  by 
the  use  of  the  cognate  words  in  the  Syriac  and  Arab'-;  languages.  I 
agree  entirely  in  the  remark  of  the  same  author,  (3.  694 — 5  )  that  the 
version  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  third,  or  probably  to  the  second  century 
after  Christ. 

*  [  In  the  original  these  references,  and  others  in  this  and  the  two  fol- 
lowing sections  are  given  in  full,  in  the  oriental  languages.  From  the 
difl&culty  of  procuring  suitable  type  for  the  Syriac  and  Arabic,  and  be- 
cause the  Hebrew  and  Greek  quotations  would  be  useless  without  the 
Syriac,  I  have  been  obliged  to  content  myself  by  referring  to  thepla- 
*.-es.     Tr.  2 


428  UN    THK,  INTERPRETATION 

as  we  shall  see  below,  is  real  dependence.  See,  for  example, 
in  Hebrew,  Chaldee  and  Syriac,  in.  3,  16,  xxn.  5,  xxni.  10. 
xxvn.  8,  nNpND3  ;  Targ.  ivith  the  measure  wherewith  thou  mea- 
surest,  will  they  measure  to  thee,  (see  Matt.  vn.  2,  and  Ljght- 
FOOT  in  ioc.  Mark,  iv.  24,)  Syr.  with  the  measure  wherewith 
thou  measurest,  wilt  thou  judge  him.  xxv.  7.  xxvni.  28.  liv.  7. 
LVii.  8.  Lvm.  3.  Lxi.  8.  lxvi.  18. — But  that  the  Syriac  trans- 
lator really  had  the  Chaldee  version  before  his  eyes  may  be 
inferred  with  some  probability  from  the  following  examples. 
The  difficult  clause  in  xxxni.  7,  D^s*")*;:  jn  [  "  behold,  their  vali- 
ant ones  ;"  Eng.  Tr.  ]  is  rendered  by  the  Syriac  :  if  he  sho7u 
himself  to  them.  It  is  evident  that  he  has  interpreted  dSk"^x 
by  D"?  Tiii'^ii  for  dhS  riN^»s;,  but  this  gives  us  only  the /rs/,  not 
the  third  person,  and  the  Syriac  translator  does  not  allow  him- 
self such  arbitrary  changes  without  reason.  This  is  to  be 
traced  to  the  Chaldee.  Here  the  version  is  pnS  ^SjnK,  which 
should  undoubtedly  be  read  in  the  first  person,  jinS  '^jpn  ;  but 
the  Syriac  translator  read  it,  as  it  stands  in  the  Polyglott, 
\inh  '''^iJ^ii,  and  consequently  rendered  it  also  in  the  third  per- 
son.    See  also  xxii.  6,  24. 

3»  Where  he  translates  independently,  he  often  follows  in 
difficult  places  exegetical  conjectures,  which  have  no  further 
authority;  but,  in  some  cases,  they  may  really  be  called 
happy. — Examples  of  independent  exposition  are  as  follows  : 
m.  24,  ^'.J'np,  their  purple  blue, — (he  combines  it  with  r^S^n). 
V.  2,  4,  Siliqu(S,  caroh  fruit  ;  (to  suit  the  context  he  chooses 
a  contemptible  species  of  fruit,  scarcely  fit  for  cattle.  See 
LuV.  XV.  16.  Sept.  dxxv^ag  : — ix.  5,  he  commutes  pxp  with 
pW  I — XX VIII.  10  ;  here  the  paronomasia  is  followed  up,  and 
the  translativin  \^  filth  upon  filth,  (as  if  i^  were  equivalent  to 
71^12:,)  vomit  ypan  vomit.  Sometimes  he  omits  words  which 
are  difficult,  or  at  least  difficult  in  the  connexion  in  which 
they  stand,  or  which  appear  to  him  superfluous  ;  as,  for  in- 
stance nnx  in  XXI.  8,  and  the  repetition  in  xxi.  11. —A  truly 
happy  exposition  is  that  in  x.  27,  broken  is  the  yoke  from  the 
fat  steer.  See  my  commentary  on  this  place. — xxvii.  25, 
with  the  steps  [  "  sole  "  Eng.  Tr.  ]  of  my  feet;   Syriac,  with 


OF    THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  4*29 

iht  hoofs  of  my  horses. — He  has  also  occasionally  supposed 
Syriac  idioms  to  be  found  in  the  Hebrew,  and  translated  ac- 
cordingly. Thus  XIV.  12,  ^nw-{3  ^Vn,  ["O  Lucifer,  son  of 
the  morning,"  Eng.  Tr.  ]  he  translates,  howl  in  the  very  dawn. 
His  mind  dwells  on  the  idiom  nj.'^  |3  in  the  same  night,  Jon. 
'v.  10,  i^a-»  i'^  in  that  very  day,  l^^-»  J^  in  the  same  hour, 
Comp.  Deut.  x\iv.  15.  Prov.  xn-  16. 

To  the  question  which  has  been  so  often  asked,  and  which 
has  not  been  answered  on  internal  grounds,  whether  the  author 
of  this  version  were  a  Jew  or  a  Christian,  1  can  confident- 
ly reply,  at  least  in  reference  to  the  translation  of  Isaiah,  in 
favour  of  the  latter  opinion.^  In  support  of  a  Jewish  author 
no  reason  is  alleged  which  can  be  considered  as  satisfac- 
tory, while  in  some  places  the  Christian  appears  very  plain- 
ly. Although  he  generally  follows  his  text  step  by  step, 
yet  there  are  some  translations  which  intimate  the  belief  to 
which  he  was  attached.  The  most  important  is  vn.  14, 
where  he  translates  r\rhy,  young  woman,  the  mother  of  Em- 
manuel, by  virgin,  while,  in  all  other  places  where  the  samd 
Hebrew  word  occurs,  he  gives  the  term  which  corresponds 
with  it,  (Gen.  xxiv.  43.  Ex.  n.  8-  Ps.  lxvhi.  26.  Cant.  i.  3. 
VI.  7,)  as  the  Chaldee  also  does  in  this  passage,  &<npSij;.  Also, 
rr^^J,  in  Gen.  xxiv.  16,  he  translates  by  tne  same  term.  In 
like  manner  h^  in  ix.  6,  used  of  the  Messiah,  he  renders  by 
the  word  God,  just  as  the  Arabic  translator  ;  and  in  lh.  15, 
like  Jerome,  he  makes  the  servant  of  God  purify  and  expiate 
the  sins  of  the  people  (with  his  blood) ;  nr,  Syr.  Xot^,  Vulg. 
asperget  — lhi.  8  :  )df,  in  reference  to  the  servant  of  God, 
is  rendered  t-j  him,  so  that  he  appears  as  an  individual  and 
not  as  a  collective  body.  The  same  interpretations  are  found 
again  in  Jerome  and  the  (Christian)  translator  of  the  Arabic 
in  the  Polyglots ;  so  that  we  see,  that  the  Christian  transla- 
tors have  not  indeed  allowed  themselves  such  gross  altera- 


3  •  For  a  Christian  origin,  see  Kirsch  Praef.  ad  Pent.  Syr.  S.  6> 
Be«tholdt's  Einieit.  n.  S.  596,  598 ;  for  the  Jewish,  R.  Simon,  Hist> 
Crit.  du  V.  T.  p.  272.  Rotterdam,  1685. 


430  ON    THE    INTERPRETATION 

tions  as  meet  us  in  the  Septuagint  and  Chaldee,  while  at  the 
same  time,  in  classical*  places,  they  have  maintained  the 
claims  of  Christian  doctrine.  In  the  Psalms,  the  views  of 
the  translator  appear  in  the  circumlocutory  interpretations  of 
the  titles,  which  are  arbitrary  and  Christian.  See  Ps.  u.  vu. 
X.  xvni.  xxii. 

Besides  the  internal  evidence,  the  fact  that  this  version 
was,  in  a  very  early  period,  the  generally  acknowledged 
church  version  of  the  Syrian  Christians,  comprehending  all 
parties,  confirms  the  opinion  that  the  author  was  a  Christian^ 
In  addition  to  which  it  may  be  urged,  that  formerly  the  Sy- 
riac  language  appears  to  have  been  employed  exclusively  by 
Christian  writers,  and  that  not  the  least  trace  of  its  use 
among  the  Jews  is  discoverable-  Its  literal  simplicity,  which 
Simon  considers  as  a  mark  of  its  Jewish  origin,  (where  he 
seems  to  have  had  Aquila  principally  in  view,)  leads  rather 
to  the  opposite  conclusion,  when  the  connexion  between  the 
Septuagint,  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  and  Saadias  on  the  one 
hand,  and  between  Symmachus,  Theodotion  and  Jerome  on 
the  other,  are  attentively  considered.  The  literal  simplicity 
of  this  Christian  translator  is,  moreover,  essentially  different 
from  the  syllable  numbering  manner  of  Aquila  and  of  the 
Venetian  translator.  But  that  an  occasional  consultation  of 
the  Targum  is  no  proof  that  the  translator  belonged  to  the 
Jews,  is  abundantly  clear  even  from  this  translator  of  Isaiah, 
who  never  grants  them,  in  doctrinal  passages,  the  least  influ* 
ence.  And  yet  even  Jerome  did  not  disdain  to  avail  himself 
of  Jewish  instructors. — If  no  more  definite  grounds  for  the 
Jewish  origin  of  this  version  in  the  other  books  can  be  ad- 
duced, (and  I  doubt  whether  this  be  possible,)  even  the  act 
'^iommodating  views  of  Eichhorn  must  be  given  up^  ;  and^ 


*  [  This  word  is  technically  applied  to  passagesL  which  are  considered 
as  prominent  in  reference  to  any  particular  point.     Tr.  ] 

a  9  EicHHOR>  (Einleit.  S.482,  \\\.  S.  133,]  §250)  endeavours  to  dis- 
tinguish the  various  books,  appropriating  them  to  various  authors,  and 
Dathe  (Praef.  ad  Psalt.  Syr.  pp.  23,  ss.)  suggests  a  proselyte  as  the 
translator 


OF    THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  431 

when  we  consider  the  similarity  of  the  Chaldee  and  the  Sy- 
riac,  the  supposition  of  a  proselyte  from  Judaism  is  altogether 
unnecessary. 

His  text  varies  here  and  there  from  the  masoretic,  but  the 
variations  are  never  superior  to  that  text.  In  general  the  con- 
trary is  the  case,  as  in  viu.  20.  x-  9.  xvi.  1.  luI.  7.  xxviu.  26. 
XXV.  8.  In  the  last  text,  he  expresses  the  word  nyjS  twice 
with  different  meanings,  thus  :  to  victory  for  ever.  It  is  fre- 
quently the  case,  that  where  many  critics,  particularly  Lowth 
and  Koppe,  have  been  anxious  to  discover  variations,  none 
such  are  to  be  found.  For  instance  in  xiii.  10,  Dn'S'pP,  [  "  con- 
stellations thereof,"  Eng.  Tr.  ]  is  rendered  their  hosts  or 
powers*  Here  Koppe  conjectures  that  the  translator  read, 
°D'':!'r!»  whereas  he  considered  D'^t?^  as  the  name  of  a  star, 
and  his  hosts  or  powers  is  the  Chaldee  kw  S^n  of  Dan.  iv. 
32,  the  5uvajxsiff  tou  ou^avou  of  Matt.  XXIV.  29. — The  text  of  the 
translator  himself  differs  occasionally  in  ^  the  citations  of 
Ephraim  the  Syrian  from  that  of  the  Polyglots,  because  he 
sometimes  rather  follows  the  Septuagint,  and  sometimes  ra- 
ther the  Hebrew  text."" 


§  4.  .      „ 

Latin  Version  of  Jerome. 

The  same  select  use  of  the  earlier  translations  which  is 
made  in  the  Syriac,  and  particularly  of  the  Alexandrine  and 
three  other  Greek  versions  contained  in  the  Hexapla,  we  find 
in  Jerome,  and  in  addition  also  to  this,  oral  instruction  com- 
municated by  Palestine  Rabbins,^^  For  this  reason  his  exposi- 
tions very  frequently  agree  with  those  of  the  later  Rabbins : 


3  0  See  G.  L.  Spohn  CoUatio  versionis  Syriacae,  quam  Peshito  vocant, 
cum  fragmentis  in  commentariis  Ephraemi  Syri  obviis.  Spec.  I.  Lips. 
1785.  Spec.  II.  Vitebergee,  1794,  4to.  Both  together  comprehend 
Isaiah. 

31  Geschichte  der  Heb.  Sprache  und  Scrift.  S.  92. 


432  on    THE    INTERPRETATION 

however,  he  does  not  on  that  account  abandon  the  cause  o{ 
Christian  doctrine  any  more  than  the  Syriac  translator,  with 
whom  he  agrees  most  accurately  in  the  places  which  have 
been  before  adduced.  For  instance  vii.  14,  noS^,  virgo,  see 
my  commentary  on  this  place  ;)  ix.  6.  S«,  Deus  (of  Christ) ; 
LU.  13,  nij  asperfrtt ;  lhi.  8,  idJ  j^jj  ^^s;;  i'^sp,  propter  scelus 
populi  mei  percussi  eum.  With  the  well  known  character  of 
this  version,  and  the  abundant  use  which  is  made  of  it  in  the 
commentary,  it  would  be  unnecessary  to  illustrate  what  has 
been  said  by  examples.  But  on  the  commentary  of  Jerome, 
compare  §  7,  2. 


§5. 

.Arabic  Version  of  Saadtas. 

The  celebrated  Rabbi  Saadias  Gaon,  who  died  A.  D.  942, 
after  he  had  been  since  927  principal  of  the  Jewish  acade- 
my at  Babylon%  was  the  first  who  composed  a  grammar  of 
the  Hebrew  language.  He  was  also  the  author  of  the  Ara- 
bic Pentateuch  printed  in  the  Polyglots,  and  of  a  version  of 
Isaiah  which,  in  its  whole  character,  agrees  most  accurately 
with  that  of  the  Pentateuch.^  Through  the  laborious  exer- 
tions of  Dr.  Paulus,  this  version  has  been  given  to  the 
world,  from  the  only  known  manuscript  extant,  which  is  pre- 
served in  the  Bodleian  liibrary  at  Oxford.  Cod.  Pocock.  No. 
32.  Uri  catalog.  Cod.  Heb.  No.  1 56.  It  is  printed  under 
this  title:  R.  Saadiae  Phijumensis  Versio  Jesaiae  Arabica, 
cum  aliis  speciminibus  Arabico-biblicis,  e  manuscripto  Bod- 
leiano  nunc  primum  edidit,  alque  ad  modumchrestomathiae 
Arabicae  biblicae  glossario  perpetuo  instruxit,  H.  E.  G. 
Paulus.     Fasc.  I.  continens  cap.  i — xxxvm.     Jenae,  1790. 


3  2  WoLFn  Biblioth.  Heb.  T.  I.  pp.  932—936. 

3  3  On  the  identity  of  the  translator  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  Isaiah, 
seeTvcHSEif  in  MiCHAEtisNeue  Orient.  Bibliothek.  vm.  S.  76,  ff. 


I 


OF    THE    PROPHEF  ISAIAH.  433 

Fasc.  II.  continens  Jesaiam  jam  totum,  ex  ii  aliis  versionibus 
prophetae  specimina  exhibens.  1791,  8vo."  The  work,  ori- 
ginally written  in  the  year  1244  in  Hebrew  letters,  often 
without  diacritical  points,  and  not  unfrequently  erroneous,  is 
published  by  the  editor  in  the  Arabic  character,  and  provid- 
ed with  the  vowel  points.  If,  in  a  work  involving  very  many 
difficulties,  the  editor  has  left  much  to  be  wished  for  in  refe- 
rence to  the  explication  and  right  understanding  of  the  text, 
yet  in  a  first  publication  this  is  not  to  be  severely  found  fault 
with.  There  is  in  this  edition,  and  especially  at  the  begin- 
ning, so  much  of  this  kind,  that  the  reader  stumbles  at  every 
step,  and  a  reference  to  the  many  improvements  at  the  end 
of  the  second  part,  which  yet  are  not  sufficient,  is  hardly  to 
be  expected  of  him,  and  therefo/fe  a  new  edition,  corrected 
and  improved  as  far  as  possible,  is  much  to  be  wished  for. 
It  should  be  accompanied  by  an  accurate  punctuation  and  a 
Latin  version,  as  it  is  difficult  now  and  then  to  understand 
the  meaning.^ 

In  general,  as  far  as  regards  apprehension  of  the  sense, 
the  version,  in  an  exegetical  point  of  view,  follows  closely 
that  interpretation  of  particular  places  which  originated  from 
the  Jews  and  was  admitted  by  their  expositors.  Consequent- 
ly it  has  a  frequent  affinity  with  the  Chaldee  and  the  later 
Rabbinical  commentators,  although  it  possesses  much  thought 
and  originality.    In  respect  to  giving  the  sense,  it  often  takes  a 


3  4  Many  improvements  in  the  text,  and  in  the  explanation  contained 
in  the  subjoined  notes,  may  be  found  in  Eichhorn's  Bibiiothek.  Th.  in. 
S.  9.  flF.  and  455,  fF.  Others,  with  remarks  in  other  respects  important, 
are  contained  in  Michaelis  Neue  Orient.  Bibiiothek,  Th.  viii.  S.  75,  IT. 
The  publication  of  Ch.  Dan.  Breithaupt  (Commentationis  in  Saa- 
dianam  versionem  lesaiae  Arabicam,  fasc.  1.  Rostochii  et  Suerini,  1819, 
pp.  96,  8vo.)  consists  of  an  introduction  and  merely  some  improve- 
ments and  observations  of  another  kind  on  chaps,  i — ni.  A  new  edi- 
tion however  is  promised.  (Comp.  Algem.  Zeitung.  1819,  No.  269.) 
RosENMiJLLER,  in  his  Scholia,  has  certainly  done  more  than  any  other 
writer,  although  constantly,  and  even  in  the  first  chapters,  where  so  ma- 
ny have  gone  over  the  ground,  a  gleaning  still  remains-  Sese,  for  ex- 
ample, the  note  on  i.  7. 

55 


434  0.M    THE    INTERPRETATlOxN' 

free  paraphrastic  course,  explains  tropes,  does  away  aiithro- 
popathic  expressions,  indulges  in  numerous  additions,  and 
changes  the  old  geographical  names  for  new.  AH  this  I 
^all  now  endeavour  to  evince  by  some  examples. 

1.  This  translator  explains  tropes  and  figurative  forms  of 
speech,  or  softens  them  by  circumlocutions.  For  instance, 
in  1.  21,  nJU  is  translated  idolatress  ;  i.  8,  jr^  ^h  standing  for 
the  city,  merely  Zion,  but,  when  it  stands  for  the  nation,  as- 
sembly, people  of  Zion,  xvi.  1 : — i.  10  is  thus  translated:  ye 
tuho  are  like  the  rulers  of  Sodom — ye  who  are  similar  to  the 
people  of  Gomorrha  : — v.  11,  'y\j?yz%  [  '  I  am  full,"  Eng.  Tr.]  ; 
Ai'ab.  /  consider  it  as  too  much  : — ni.  6,  nxin  nSi!0?3n,  ["  this 
ruin,"  Eng.  Tr.]  ;  Arab,  this  poor  people  : — vni.  1,  iyiJ.«  D;^n5, 
["  with  a  man's  pen,"  Eng.  Tr.]  ;  with  the  usual  writing : — 
x.  15,  ]y'vh  ni^p  onn^,  ["as  if  the  staff  should  lift  up  (itself, 
as  if  it  were)  no  wood,"  Eng.  Tr.]  ;  Arab,  as  if  the  lifting 
up  of  the  staff  did  not  proceed  from  him,  namely,  from  him 
who  raises  it.  Sometimes  he  adds  the  particle  like  as.  See 
11.  21.  xiv.  3.  Moreover,  he  is  not  always  uniform,  and  some- 
times preserves  such  expressions  unaltered,  as  in  ix.  14, 
|iDJNi  n33,  ["  branch  and  rush,"  Eng.  Tr.] ;  Arab  pond  and 
palm  twig, ^^  (only  by  an  everted  arrangement ;)  or  selects  the 
trope  somewhat  differently,  as  in  ix.  6  ;  on  whose  head  the 
government  rests,  where  his  mind  is  dwelling  on  a  crown. 

2.  He  removes  anthropopathic  expressions  or  softens  them. 
I.  15,  ^^4?  Q')):^,  [  "  I  will  hide  mine  eyes,"  Eng.  Tr.  ]  ;  Arab. 
I  will  shut  up  my  compassion: — v.  18.  nnp^J}  N3-oS  ["come 
now  and  let  us  reason  together,"  Eng.  Tr.  ]  ;  Arab,  come  on 
until  we  meet  one  another  : — vi.  1,  his  splendor  filled  the  tem- 
ple ;— XIX.  1,  Sp_  3r  Sjtr  njS  mn;,  [  "the  Lord  rideth  upon  a 
swift  cloud,"  Eng.  Tr.  ]  ;  Arab.  God  covered  his  word  in  swift 
clouds  :~xxx\\.  16,  17  "iji  ^3  7,  ["for  my  mouth  it  hath 
commanded,  and  his  spirit  it  hath  gathered  them,"  Eng,  Tr.]  ; 


3  5  Dr.  Paulus  ^ives  a  different  punctuation  to  one  of  the  words,  and 
translates :  jugulwn  et  ulcus  (capitis  aut  faciei) ;  but  this  gives  no  intel- 

itgible  sense. 


OF    THE  PROPHET    ISAIAH.  435 

tie  with  his  zvord-gives  command  respecting  thcmy  and  his  angel, 
he  makes  them  together.     Like  a  king  he  casts  lot  respecting 
fhem  and  divides  it  among  them.     Thus,  in  the  manner  of  the 
later  Jews,  he  makes  God's  angel  or  word  (i<Jr2'D)  instead 
of  himself  to  be  engaged  in  the  work  of  creation.     Comp. 
also  XXVI.  21.  XXVIII.  3,  where  word  of  God  \s  used  for  Je 
hovahf  and  xxv.  10,  for  hand  of  Jehovah.     For  father  of  men" 
applied  to  God,  he  uses  creator,  lxui.  16.  lxiv.  7,  for  arm  of 
Jehovah  Lxiii.  12,  power  of  God,  while  on  the  other  hand  in 
X.  2,  the  trope  short  hand  of  God  is  retained,  probably  because 
it  was  used  in  the  Arabic,  and,  as  a  trope,  without  being  of- 
fensive.     In  L.  5,  instead  of,  "  the  Lord  God  hath  opened 
mine  ear,"  the  Arabic  is,  God  has  before  instructed  me  in  the 
matters.     Comp.  yet  i.  12,  18,  20, 24. — Like  other  translators, 
he  supposes  indecorous  expressions  to  be  inconsistent  with 
the  dignity  of  Scripture,  and  removes  them.     For  instance, 
111.  17,  n^y:  \r}m,  [  "  will  discover  their  secret  parts,"  Eng. 
Tr,  ]  ;  Arab,  he  will  bare  their  parts  (or  sides)  :^-Lvn  8 ;  here 
for  n\Tn  t  ["where  thou  sawest  «7,"  Eng.  Tr.  ]  he  leaves 
an  empty  space  : — and  in  xiii.  16,  he  expresses  at  least  the 
milder  reading  of  the  Keri  ru^Diyn. 

3.  His  additions  are  similar  to  those  of  the  Chaldee  inter- 
preter, and  are  very  frequently  intended  to  designate  a 
change  of  the  party  speaking.  For  example,  lvui.  1,  he 
(God)  spake  to  me  : — v.  3,  in  the  beginning,  thei/  say  ;  and 
before  the  last  member,  O prophet,  answer  him  : — lx.  8,  then 
will  J  say  : — lxhi.  1,  then  will  it  be  said.  See  u.  10.  viii.  19. 
Lxu.  1.  Lxni.  11.  Others  are  of  less  frequent  occurrence. 
One  which  is  more  doctrinal  is  in  xlu.  19,  where  to  the 
words  explained  of  the  Messiah,  who  is  deaf — if  it  be  not  he 
to  whom  I  send  my  messenger,  (i.  e.  the  Messiah,)  immediate- 
ly he  adds  in  a  parenthesis,  zy/ien  I  shall  have  sent  him  to  them, 
(the  people),  thereby  retaining  the  suggestion  that  this  mes- 
senger is  a  personage  whose  coming  was  still  to  be  expect- 
ed.^— On  the  other  hand,  he  has  also  again  omitted  what 


3  6  Dr.  RosenmflUer,  on  XLii.  19,  considers  these  words  as  anintff' 


436  ON    I'riE    IN^'ERPRKTATION 

appeared  to  him  to  be  superfluous,  as,  for  instance,  tlie  im- 
pressive repetition  in  li.  15, 17,  and  frequently. 

4.  Like  the  author  of  the  later  Targums  and  of  the  Samari- 
tan version,  mstcdd  of  the  old  geographical  names  he  intro- 
duces the  more  modern  terms  which  were  in  use  in  his  own 
day,  and  is  very  often  correct.  Thus,  for  example,  jsf  3  is 
Batan(Ba,  u.  13  ;  u/^r^^'^2Cercusium,  x.  9  ;  r>3  Ahhysinia,  xi. 
II.  xvn.  1;  D'.IV?  ^r^  ^^*  •^^^•''■^j  xxvn.  12;  jnTpi^  Sebaste. 
X.  9 :  others  are  not  unsuitable,  as  D^'i^,  Cyprus,  xxni.  1  > 
(see  my  Lexicon  on  this  word  ;)  jn^,  the  capital  city  of  Cho- 
rasan,  xxxvn.  12,  (see  the  Commentary  in  loc. :)  DJn,  a  city  in 
Egypt,  xxx.  4,  (see  Comment.  ;)  uS3,  a  city  in  Mesopotamia, 
X.  8,  (see  Schultens  ind.  ad  Vit.  Saladini  on  the  word  Racca ;) 
dVj[  XI.  11,  and  xxii.  5  ;  '^r^  Hamedan^  i.  e.  the  chief  city  of 
Media,  xni.  17,  and  xxi.  2  ;  5<5*^*  a  city  in  Arabia,  lx.  6,  (see 
AfiALFED-ffi  Arabia,  cur.  Rommel,  p.  30,  42 — Some  others, 
however,  are  very  erroneous,  as  d^n  Armenia,  vn.  5.  ix.  11, 
(comp.  Gen.  x.  22,)  where  the  similarity  of  the  name  has 
given  rise  to  the  mistake ;  njn  Antioch  xi.  11  ;  also,  "yw^  in 
vn.  18,  XI.  11,  XX.  4,  while  Mesopotamia  constituted  only  one 
part  of  the  Assyrian  empire.  But  he  is  not  uniform,  and 
sometimes  explains  "\r^^N  by  southern  Mesopotamia,  vn.  20, 
vm,  4  ;t  oV^n^  he  sometimes  translates  by  dwelling  of  peace, 
^LX,  L  or  city  of  peace,  xl.  2,  which  is  of  some  importance  in 


potation  hy  a  Christian  hand,  and  translates  them,  sane  misi  mm  ad  ilium, 
according  to  which  the  advent  of  that  messenger  is  presumed  to  have 
taken  place.  But  interpolations  made  in  this  work  by  a  Christian  wri- 
ter are  quite  improbable,  and  the  translation  given  above  in  the  text  is 
undoubtedly  AVell  founded,  since  \a^  for  tehen,  used  of  the  future,  is  a 
very  common  meaning,  and  then  the  preterite  must  be  taken  by  the 
future  completed.*  Thus,  for  instance,  when  you  shall  ha ce  come  together 
wilhher,  (Thousand  and  one  nights.  No.  162,  in  Michaklis'  Chrestoma- 
thy,  third  edition,  edited  by  Bernstein,  p.  188,)  or,  I  will  come  to  you, 
lohen  that  one  shall  have  come  before,  (DscUauhari  in  GoLius,  col.  54,)' 
in  both  which  places,  the  Arabic  uses  the  same  word. 

*  [  In  the  original,  it  is  futurum  exacium.     By  this  the  author  means 
what  Webster  calls  the  Prior-Future,  indefinite.     Tr.  ] 

i  [  An  omission  of  one  or  tw^o  lines  in  this  place  is  caused  by  the  dif- 
ficulty of  printing  the  Arabic  words.      Tr.  1 


OV   THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH. 


437 


reference  to  the  etymological  interpretation.  The  word  \if'V:']i^ 
he  renders  sea  in  n.  16,  xxui.  1,  10,  14.  lx.  9,  agreeing  with 
the  Targum,  but  in  Gen.  x.  3,  he  translates  it  Tarsus. 

5.  Not  unfrequently  does  he  make  an  attempt  to  retain 
the  Hebrew  words  themselves,  or  with  slight  alteration,  in 
the  Arabic,  which  to  his  ear  is  generally  euphonic.  See  i.  8, 
9,  12.  n.  3.  V.  2,  and  compare  Gen.  xlix.  11.  Sometimes 
the  exposition  acquires  in  this  w^ay  additional  force,  as  in  i.  7, 
where  on?  nDSnoa  is  translated  like  the  rushing  course  of 
streams, 

6.  Interpretations  which  correspond  with  those  given  in 
the  Targum  and  by  the  Rabbins  are  constantly  to  be  met 
with.  Thus,  for  example  :  vi.  1,  in  the  year  when  King  Uz- 
ziah  became  leprous  : — ^xxi.  5,  |iO  *n^'p,  and  they  anointed 
a  king  from  them  ;  comp.  Abarbenel,  who  explains  jiD, 
.'ihieldf  by  king,  and  Aben-Ezra  who  refers  it  expressly  to 
Darius  : — v.  24,  fro?n  the  ornament  of  the  people  to  the  orna- 
ment of  the  priests,  who  take  charge  of  the  basins,  and  to  the 
ornament  of  the  Levites,  who  sing  hymns.  See  above  the 
Chaldee  and  Syriac. — xxiv.  15,  onxs,  Targ.  when  light 
comes  for  the  righteous  ;  Saadias,  when  his  light  will  appear  ;— - 
XXVI.  3,  "^IiDD  '^2f;,  the  creatures  who  are  supported,  i.  e.  who 
need  support.  In  this  way  is  the  word  nv";  explained  b}^ 
Jarchi.  Comp.  ix.  4,  with  his  note. — Ungrammatical  con- 
nexions of  words  occur  also,  as  in  Jonathan  ;  thus  in  xxii.  3, 
nDJ|inK/pD  nn^,  50  that  they  are  bound  by  one  6 ow,  as  if  the 
reading  were,  nn^;  r\p^p,  Comp.  vii.  21.  On  the  other 
hand  examples  of  meanings  peculiar  to  the  author  and  very 
suitable  will  be  found  in  abundance  in  my  Commentary. 

Various  readings  in  the  consonants  will  probably  not  be 
found,  provided  the  reader  be  thoroughly  acquainted  with  his 
manner,  and  constantly  keep  it  in  view.  In  the  vowels  there 
are  sometimes  variations.  See  xmx.  37,  where  instead  of 
T33  he  reads  yj3. 


438  OS    THE    INTERPRETATION 

§6. 

Versions  which  have  sprung  from  the  Alexandrine, 
'% 

Of  the  versions  founded  on  the  Alexandrine,  all  of  which 
were  composed  by  Christians,  and  may  be  made  very  ser- 
viceable in  the  criticism  of  the  Septuagint,  on  the  prophet 
Isaiah  it  is  only  the  Latin,  as  far  as  it  remains,  the  Arabic, 
the  Armenian  and  the  Georgian,  that  have  appeared  in  print. 
Omitting  the  two  last,  which  are  not  accessible  to  me,  nor  do 
I  sufficiently  understand  them,  I  shall  confine  my  remarks  to 
the  first,  in  reference  to  its  critical  relation  to  the  Septua- 
gint.'^ 

1.  It  is  well  known  that  the  old  Latin  version,  antecedent 
to  the  time  of  Jerome,  was  lost,  with  the  exception  of  such 
books  as  were  incorporated  in  the  Vulgate.  From  the  high 
estimation,  however,  in  which  the  Old  Testament  writer  un- 
der consideration  was  held,  such  a  multitude  of  quotations 
from  him  according  to  this  version  is  to  be  found  in  the  early 
fathers,  that  Sabatier,  in  his  important  collection  of  fragments 
from  them  and  from  other  manuscripts,^  was  able  to  restore 
three  fourths  of  the  whole  book,  1000  verses  out  of  1293, 
which  is  not  the  case  with  regard  to  any  other  book  of  the 
Old  Testament.  This  version  follows,  as  is  known,  the  text 
of  the  Septuagint  which  existed  before  the  time  of  Origen,  or 


3  7  The  most  important  of  these  versions  that  have  sprung  from  the 
Septuagint  is  undoubtedly  the  Hexaplar  Syriac,  of  which  the  Ambro- 
sian  manuscript,  which  in  the  Norberg  copy  has  but  lately  been  used 
by  MiDDLEDORPF,  (cuTse  Hexaplares  in  Jobum,  1817, 4to.)  contains 
Isaiah.  The  Ethiopic  is  in  the  British  Museum,  and  contains,  along  with 
the  canonical  Isaiah,  the  manuscript  of  Lawrence,  from  which  The,  As- 
cension of  Isaiah  was  printed.  See  Praet.  p.  v.  It  follows  the  Alex- 
andrine recension. 

3  8  Petri  Sabatier  Bibliorum  sacrorum  Latinae  versionis  antiquae, 
seu  vetus  Italica  et  caeteras  quscunque  in  Codd.  MSS.  et  antiquorum 
libris  reperiri  potuerunt  Romis,  1743.  T.  j. — iii.  Fol.  The  version  of 
Isaiah  is  in  T.  ii,  pp.  515—639. 


OP    THE    PROi»HET    ISAIAH.  439 

what  was  called  the  xoivr]  or  vulgate,  and  therefore  agrees  for 
the  most  part  with  the  Vatican  text  of  the  Septuagint,  which 
comes  nearest  of  all  to  that  of  the  xo<v>).^  On  this  account  it  is 
able,  from  its  close  literal  manner,  to  afford  important  service 
for  the  restitution  of  the  ancient  readings.  Thus,  for  example, 
in  Lx.  5,  something  is  missed  in  the  Septuagint  which  should 
correspond  with  the  word  mn:i.  Theodotion  has,  xai  XH^^V  '•> 
and  that  it  should  also  be  so  read  in  the  Septuagint  is  shown 
by  the  Old  Vulgate,  et  gaudebis,  and  also  by  the  Arabic.  It 
contains,  too,  all  the  additions  of  the  Alexandrine  version 
which  are  not  founded  on  the  Hebrew  text,  as  in  i.  21.  iv.  4. 
ix.  1,  21.  XXX.  4,  XL.  1,  5.  xLii.  1.  Lxv.  4,  which,  in  part,  as 
XL.  1.  5,  are  not  found  in  the  copies  that  have  been  affected 
by  Origen's  revision  Traces  of  the  influence  of  Christian 
dogmatic  or  polemic  theology  I  have  no  where  found,  and, 
were  they  in  general  circulation  as  early  as  the  time  of  the 
translator,  there  was  indeed  no  opportunity  for  it,  since  in  the 
Septuagint  according  to  the  ^oivr]  all  the  places  which  were 
formerly  brought  into  consideration,  as  ix.  6,  lii.  13.  liii.  8, 
have  entirely  perished.  The  occurrence  of  virgo  in  vu.  14,  is 
not  to  be  taken  into  account,  since  this  is  the  natural  transla- 
tion of  "B-apSsvo?.  In  some  places  vi^hich  have  been  misunder- 
stood by  the  Arabic  translator,  he  has  given  the  sense  more 
correctly,  as,  for  example,  in  xxvi.  14. 

2.  According  to  the  subscription  of  the  Paris  manuscript,  the 
Mrabic  translation'm the  Paris  and  London  Polyglots,  in  Isaiah, 
as  in  the  prophets  generally,  was  composed  by  an  ecclesiastic 
of  the  Alexandrine  church,  whose  age  cannot  be  ascertained 
with  certaity.'^"  But  the  manuscript  was  written  A.  D.  1584. 
In  reference  to  his  age,  thus  much  only  can  be  said,  that  he  must 
have  written  when   the  Arabic  language    had  excluded  in 


3  9  Rob.  Holmes,  Praef.  ad  ed.  Oxen,  lxx  Interp.  1798,  fol.  Cap.  2. 
No.  2. 

*  0  See  GabrielSionita  in  the  preface  to  the  Syriac  Psalter,  Paris, 
1625,  Alder's  Bibliscb.  Kritische  Beise,  S,  208. 


440  OS    THE    INTEKFRETATION 

Egypt  the  Greek  (and  Coptic),  or  had  begun  to  exclude  them, 
so  that  such  versions  had  become  necessary  for  the  use  of 
Christians ;  in  other  words,  somewhat  after  the  10th  century.*^ 
At  that  period  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  Etychius,  son  of 
Patrick,  wrote  a  history  of  the  world  in  Arabic,  and  afterwards 
many  Christian  writers  in  Egypt  made  use  of  that  language, 
for  instance,  Elmacin.  The  Arabic  diction  of  this  translator 
seems  at  times  to  approximate  to  the  vulgar  dialect,  as  when 
he  usually  begins  his  version  of  the  books  with  the  form :  we. 
begin  the  translation  ofMalachi,  c^c,  for  :  /  begin.  If  we  were 
better  acquamted  with  the  history  of  the  lessons  and  portions 
of  the  Bible  used  in  the  Greek  church,  (of  which  further  be- 
low,) we  should  probably  be  able  to  arrive  at  some  conclusion 
respecting  the  age  in  which  he  lived. 

Pecuhar  to  this  version,  at  least  in  Isaiah,  in  its  external 
form,  is  a  threefold  division,  each  of  which  appears  continu- 
ously in  the  same  text.  In  the  first  place,  Isaiah,  as  well  as 
the  other  prophets,  is  divided  into  a  number  of  sections,"^  of 
which  Isaiah  contains  thirty,  the  portions  being  in  general 
very  badly  divided,  as  no  other  principle  seems  to  have  been 
kept  in  view,  except  that  of  giving  to  each  a  nearly  equal 
number  of  verses.  Thus,  for  instance,  number  2  begins 
with  n.  10,  (number  3  is  wanting,)  number  4  with  vu.  3, 
number  5  with  ix.  1,  number  6  with  x.  22,  number  7  with 
xm.  11.  Better  is  that  division,  which  however  is  confined 
to  the  beginning  of  Isaiah  and  to  Daniel,  which  designates 
the  oracles  or  visions,  for  instance,  number  2  at  n.  I,  number 
3  at  VI.  1,  number  4  at  vii.  1,  number  5  at  xni.  1,  number  9 
at  xix.  1,  number  10  at  xx.  1  Beside  these  two  divisions," || 
there  is  also  another  of  a  liturgicaj  kind,  which  is  peculiar  to 
Isaiah.  Very  frequently  we  meet  with  express  indications 
by  means  of  titles  thrown  in,  that  here  a  (church)  lesson  be. 
gins,  with  which  an  outhne  of  the  contents  is  usually  given  ; 


*  J  Renaudot  Hist.  Patriarch.  Alexand.  Jacobit.  pp.  367,  418. 

*  Tbe  Arabic  word  is,  in  the  Polyglot  translations,  incorrectly  ren- 
dered text. 


I 


or   THE   PROPHET   ISAIAH-  441 

sometimes  the  festival  on  which  the  lesson  is  to  be  read  is 
also  mentioned,  but  never  how  far  it  extends.  Yet  this  is, 
as  I  conjecture,  only  omitted  in  the  impression  in  the  Poly- 
glots, The  following  may  serve  as  specimens  of  such  ti- 
tles: 1.21,  Lesson,  wherein  the  prophet's  amazement  at  the 
city  of  Jerusalem  and  its  changts  is  i^ontained,  and  what 
should  happen  to  it  and  its  inhabitants  i^  mentioned  / — in.  16, 
Lesson,  containing  the  prophefs  denunciation  against  the  in^ 
continence  of  the  women  of  Zion.  Such  are  found  too  in  m. 
1.  V.  1.  VI.  1,  IX.  8.  X.  i,  &c.  with  the  addition  of  the  fes- 
tival before  vu.  10,  thus  :  Lesson  for  the  festival  of  the  birth 
(of  Christ),  containing  the  prophefs  message  to  the  house  of 
David  respecting  the  birth  of  Christ  ; — before  xl.  3,  Lesson 
for  Si,  John's  day  ; — before  lvu.  3,  Lesson  for  the  Sunday — , 
where  something  seems  to  be  wanting ; — before  lx.  1,  Lesson 
for  Easter  Sunday.'^  There  are  also  other  titles,  which  con- 
tain notices  of  the  contents  together  with  historical  and  doc- 
trinal explanations.    Por  example,   in  xxv.  1 :  thanksgivings 


4  9  As  it  has  been  ascertained,  that  definite  portions  for  the  festival 
were  earlier  in  use  than  for  all  Sundays,  this  directs  us  to  that  earlier 
time.  Of  the  portions  above  referred  to,  two,  namely  vii,  10,  ss.  and 
^L.  3,  ss.,  agree  with  the  usage  of  tlie  Western,  that  is,  the  Gallicaa 
«hurch,  which  we  learn  from  a  Lectionariiim  G&llicum  of  the  seventh 
century,  (See  Mabillow,  Lib.  2.  Liturg.  Gallic.  Paris,  1782,  ed.  ii. 
Paris,  1729,  pp.  106,  ss.  and  comp.  Thameri  Schediasma  de  origine  ^ 
dignitate  pericoparum,  Jenae  1716,  pp.  102,  ss.,)  and  xl.  3,  ss-  with  our 
^wn  portion  in  the  Epistles.*  The  Section  lx.  1  ss,,  on  the  other  hand, 
\vas  read  in  the  Galilean  chufch  on  the  festival  of  the  Epiphany,  and 
tiii.,  moreover,  on  Good  friday.  With  respect  to  the  reading  of  de- 
finite portions  of  the  gospels  in  the  Greek  church,  the  chief  places  may 
be  found  in  Chrysostom,  Homil.  xi  and  lvu  on  John,  and  in  Leo 
Allatids  as  quoted  by  Thamer  ubi  sup.  p.  66.  Respecting  those  from 
ihe  epistles,  I  am  not  able  to  obtain  any  further  accounts.  The  consecu- 
tion of  the  lessons  in  the  first  chapters  of  Isaiah  shows  that  they  must 
Slave  read  all  the  books  of  the  Bible  in  continuous  euccession.  But  ge<- 
«erally  in  the  history  of  liturgies  these  circumstances  are  not  to  be  dis- 
covered. 

*  [  The  author  refers  to  the  portions  appointed  to  be  used  by  th« 
fiUtheran  church,  which  ar^  marked  also  in  some  e4iti(Mis  of  the  Ger^ 
aian  Bible.    Xr.  ] 

^6 


443  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION 

of  King  Hezekiah  to  the  Lord  on  account  of  having  conquer'- 
ed  ; — ^xxxi.  1 :  prophecy  respecting  the  Jews,  who  went  doivn 
to  Egypt ; — xxxiii.  7;  prophecy  respecting  the  King  of  Mosul 
(Assyria),  on  the  victory  of  the  King  of  Babylon  over  him, 
and  how  he  would  take  the  kingdom  from  him  ;  — xxxv.  2  :  ex- 
hortation of  the  prophet  to  the  weak,  and  annunciation  of  the 
coming  of  Christ  ; — xlii.  1  :  prophecy  respecting  the  Lord 
Christ ; — Lii.  13  ;  prophecy  respecting  Christ,  of  his  crucifix- 
ion, and  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  In  these  additions  the 
translator  has  availed  himself  of  the  traditions  of  the  eastern; 
Greek  church. 

With  respect  to  the  internal  character  of  this  version,  it 
expresses,  as  might  be  expected  from  a  work  composed  iq 
Alexandria,  the  recension  of  the  Seventy  which  was  in  ge- 
neral use  in  that  church,  and  agrees  therefore  for  the  most 
part  with  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  which  seems  to  have 
been  derived  from  the  Hexapla,  in  opposition  to  the  Vatican, 
which  is  closely  allied  to  the  Ko/vii.'*^  But  the  copy  used  by 
the  translator  must  have  approximated  more  nearly  still  to 
the  Hexaplar  text,  since  he  frequently  shows  a  closer  affinity 
to  the  Hebrew  than  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  in  which 
be  often  agrees  with  the  excellent  Hexaplar  Codex  Marcha- 
lianus,'^^  In  particular,  he  fills  up  many  chasms  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  following  Theodotion,  as  Origen  also  does  in  the 
Hexapla.  But  in  these  cases,  I  am  not  able  to  perceive 
that  he  has  gone  back  to  the  Hebrew  text  itself,''^  which  at 
that  period  was  seldom  done  by  Christians,  or  rather  not  at 
all,  but  merely  that  he  has  limited  his  sources  to  as  complete 
a  Hexaplar  copy  as  could  be  procured. 

As  agreement  with  the  Alexandrine  manuscript  is  uniforrp 
and  habitual  with  him,  I  think  it  preferable  to  give  some  ex- 
amples in  which  he  has  varied  from  it,  and  scenes  to  have  ap? 


4  3  See  Holmes,  Praef.  ad  Pentateuchum,  (prefixed  to  the  first  volume 
pf  his  edition  of  the  Septuagint,)  Cap.  2.  No.  2,  3. 

4  4  See  Stroth  in  the  Reportorium  fUr  Bibl.  und  morgenlancjiscl^ 
I^Ueratur,  Th.  8,  S.  189. 

4  5  See  RosENMiiLLER  Scholia  ip  Jes.  on  xlv.  9. 


OP  THE  rilOPHET  iSAlAH. 


443 


J>roachccl  nearly  to  the  Hexaplar  copy.  Thus  in  i.  22,  he  wants 
the  additional  clause  in  the  Alexandrine  manuscripts,  ai  iroXsis 
u^wv  flTu^/xau^oj : — X.  14,  besides  the  words  which  are  contained 
in  the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine  manuscripts,  xa<  6w  sCtjv  og  (5ia- 
(psu^sTai  jxs,  ^  oLVTsi'ffr}  fjto'i,  he  expresses  also  the  addition  of  Thoo- 
dotion  founded  on  the  Hebrew,  xaj'dvoi'/wv  ro  tfrojuka  xal  Ct^ou^i^wv. 
"I'heodoret,  0pp.  T.  n.  p.  244,  has  also  the  same. — xni.  31 ; 
here  the  usual  text  of  the  Septuagint  has  a  chasm  :  xccl  oux  gtfTi 
Tou  timt.  ...  for  the  Hebrew  r*T>nDn  mn  px.  The  conjec- 
ture of  Lambert  Bos  that  fAsn/aj  is  the  true  reading  is  strength- 
ened by  the  Arabic  :  no  one  remains  on  their  traces.  What 
he  found  in  his  Greek  copy  corresponding  with  in;?in::,  I  do 
not  venture  to  deterjnine,  probably  ^v  ToTg  'ix^sdi,  so  that  vnj^vn 
was  expressed,  as  in  Prov.  v.  6. — -xxi.  1 :  here  the  usual  text 
for  D^  *i3ir3  K»'D  is,  ro  o^afxa  TTjg  sPTjfxou.  Only  the  Cod.  Mar- 
chaL  adds,  ^ccXaddvig,  and  thus  also  the  Arabic :  prophecy  to 
ihe  inhabitants  of  the  desert  near  the  sea.  And  the  same  read- 
ing is  also  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Vulgate,  visio  deserii  maris, 
and  in  the  commentaries  of  Theodoret  and  Procopius. — ^xxj. 
13  ;  the  usual  text  is :  ^v  rw  (5^|xcJ  eC-^'t'^a^  xoi/xijS-rr,  ^  Iv  vfi  65w 
AatSoiv,  where  both  the  tense  of  yoiiLri^-fig  and  the  particle  -^  are 
unsuitable.  Only  the  Cod.  Marchal.,  Mediol  in  Sabatier,  and 
Gyrill  of  Alexandria  (0pp.  T.  n.  p.  312.)  connect  them  and 
read  xoi/xti^Vt;.  Thus  also  the  Arabic,  which  besides  places 
here  the  words  cfa^'  sfxoi  o»xsi  from  v.  12 :  dwell  with  me  in 
the  wood,  thou  wilt  rest  in  the  evening  on  the  way  to  Dadan. 
The  Vulgate  is  still  more  accurate,  according  to  the  Hebrew : 
i?i  saltu  ad  vesperam  dormietis,  in  via  Daddn. — xlv.  9:  here 
the  Septuagint  is  quite  arbitrary :  rroTov  j3i\riov  xarso'xsuafl'a  ws 
crrjXov  xs^aiidus  J  M  o  cc^or^jwy  d^or^iao'cj  tyiv  yr^v  oXrjv  t'/)v  vj/xs^av 
(probably  conjectural  from  xxvni.  24.)  The  Arabic  is,  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  :  wo  to  him  that  quarrelleth  with  his  ma- 
ker, and  doth  not  know  that  he  is  made  of  a  potter'' s  sherd.  The 
first  member  is  according  to  Theodotion  *,  oua/  o  x^miusvog  ilsto. 
coy  ffXas'tfovTog  auro'v ;  in  the  second  the  intermediate  Greek  ver- 
sion, (probably  Symmachus,  Aquila,)  is  lost  to  us,  for  Theodotion 
also  has  here,  dporpMv  rovs  dporpil^vrag  <niv  y^jv. — lxvi.  17 ;  here  the 
Hebrew  *]inD  nnx  nnx  is  expressed  in  the  Septuagint  merely  by 


4i#  ON    THE    INTERPRETATION 

h  ToTs  rpo^-upo/j,  which  the  old  Vulgate  gives  in  the  words,  i« 
liminibus.  The  Arabic  follows  a  more  complete  text :  before 
the  doors,  and  in  the  enclosed  hedges,  (septa  sacra  ?)-^-'TW 
place  LX.  5,  has  been  already  touched  on  above,  when  treating 
of  the  Vulgate. — ix*.  .6 :  This  is  a  case,  worthy  of  notice,  where^ 
a  Christian  doctrine,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  is  brought  before 
us.  In  this  text,  where  the  Vatican,  followed  by  the  old  Vul- 
gate, reads,  very  widely  different  from  the  original,  xai  xaXsu 
Tai  <ro  ovo/xo^^  cturou,  ixsyaXyis  /SouXt^j  ayyskos'  ct|w  Y^^  ^^p^VTjv  iifl 
roOff  apxovra^,  xal  vyisiav  ctuTw^  this  Arabic  version  follows,  as  inf 
general,  the  Alexandrine  text :  xaki(fst  to  &vo|xa  avrou,  jxe/aXiiffy 
l^ov\^S  ciyyskoeiy  ^auy-atfTof,  tfu|x/3ouXo&,  «<''X"P°^  (^^)?  i^ou(fia(fTr\g^ 
ot^wv  iipriVTigy  irarri^   vov  /xsXXov-to?   diwvo^.      'Eyoj  ya^  a^w  ^i^^vtjv  xai 

vyiav  dvrov,  which,  through  its  exceedingly  great  completeness 
and  the  union  of  the  old  reading  with  that  of  TheodotioOy 
cannot  at  all  be  denied  to  be  of  Hexaplar  origin,  only  instead 
of  iV^upos  it  expresses  ^sos  t^fx^pk.  This  reading,  in  whicb 
^sos  is  plainly  introduced,  (for  113^  Sx  is  expressed  by  it^x^fosr 
Ifourfiarfcin^,)  is  found  in  the  Aldine  and  Complutensian  texts,, 
and  with  the  fathers,  who  strenuously  defended  it,  and  cxie^ 
out  against  the  Jews  for  corrupting  the  text.^** 


♦fl  Thus  it  is  cited  in  the  epistle  of  Ignatius  (o  the  AntiocKJanSiT 
cap,  3/  Irknaeus  adv.  Haeres.  iv.  66 :  et  vocabitur  nomen  ejus,  ad* 
mirabilis,  consiiiarius,  Deus  fortis  cet.  Eusebius  Demon.  Evan g.  vii.  p. 
208,  edit,  Rob.  Stefh.,  accompanied,  however,  by  the  observation,  thai 
it  stands  so  only  in  some  manuscripts.  After  Ire  has  quoted  the  ver- 
sions  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotiour  be  proceeds  thus :  iji'ii 
*R0fetien<fmi*i  viirl  tow  h^vfos  Hk  9nfiix,tt^  <^<'  ov  anfiaiirtmi  o  3-j(5;.  T16X' 
X«;^eu  yatg  tJJc  yfa^'^t  roiJ  »\  htl  too  3-»ey  xemfvev,  kha  ti  ToiifxiTd  ^«'^*ff 
iluioie$(  nra.ftixin:ritr  aart  J*i«t'  ret.6r)ts  tj»c  ^»»Iic  it*t_^io(  ^a^o/n^iTtfi  te  ytf' 
tn^h  ifJih  TTAlS'ioi'  fijutli  Tdtvvv  hu«,  dr  i/uaiprotfjitv,'  ^tor  J'vr«'rc>ytffJi>ivti/»f' 
♦•r.  In  his  commentary  on  this  place  he  merely  mentions  the  old  coBOk 
mon  reading.  Theodoket  0pp.  T.  ii.  p.  235,  edit,  Schulze  :  «/t«  T«r 
iltfJtttTetv  TO  fAil^ov,  Qtof  lax^f^i'  Tcuto  eTi  KttKWfyirtattt  ht  tetpl  rer  'A«y- 
Xay,  Iv^fls  S'vtATCK  {}i>fAmtv<rav'  Kilrm  J'l  Treipx  <r»  'E^p-tim  ixytfiei^'  to  /i 
T^h  S"Mf,  ««t4  T»r  Tovrav  *f/x»iUAV'  to  y»^  /uiS-'  nfAih  o  ©lof  ^V-fitfJutitvix 
xttfAtroy,  iuTut  ^/AMitvTctr. 

•  [  CoTELERlus,  Ed.  Ant.  1700,  vol.  il.  p.  110,  This  ir  one  of  tbr 
supposititious  epistlei .     Tr.  ] 


OP    tHE    PROPHET    ISAIAK,  445 

Some  instances  of  evident  variations  I  should  prefer  as- 
cribing to  a  somewhat  free  translation.  For  example,  in  vii. 
20,  the  Septuagint,  accordmg  to  the  Alexandrine  manuscript, 
is,  £v  T^  ^u^w  Tw  fAsyaXw^  xai  fjLSfXES-utffA^vw  ;  the  Arabic,  with  his 
great  sharp  rasor.  This  is  an  explanation  of  the  poetic  fh 
gure,  (which  may  have  been  interpreted  by  xxxiv.  5,)  and  is 
found  also  in  the  Syriac,  according  to  Ephraim's  reading, 
(fAr^JTfju,  sharp,)  in  the  Ghaldee,  and  in  Saadias. — xxu.  3,  o» 
akovTSs  (fxkri^dg  ^g^sfisvoi  liCr  Arabic,  and  those  who  fall  (name- 
ly, into  their  hands,)  zoill  be  harshly  bound. — Sometimes  he 
entirely  misunderstands  the  Greek  text,  an  instance  of  which 
occurs  in  xxvi.  14,  imp"  kS  d^nsi,  <aTPo<  ov  fxoi  avatfT-^couCj.  Here 
the  Vulgate  has  correctly,  neque  medici  resuscitabunt  (sc.  mor- 
tuum),  but  the  Arabic  version  is,  the  physicians  do  not  stand 
up :  a  Greek  gloss  must  therefore  have  been  introduced,  which 
expressed  the  Hebrew  imp',  (perhaps  by  dvatfT^ovTaj.)  In 
other  places  his  reading  is  no  less  erroneous  than  that  of  the 
common  text.  This  is  the  case  in  v.  17,  where  the  Hebrew 
D'^HD  nnin  is  expressed  by  rag  i^rj^iovs  twv  airgiXTifAixgvwv,  (of  those 
who  are  taken  or  carried  away,)  which  certainly  can  hardly 
be  right  and  founded  on  the  Hebrew  text.  And  the  Arabic 
is  no  better;  the  fragments  of  the  threatened ;  and  the  trans- 
lator may  have  had  before  his  eyes  the  reading  in  bad  Greek 
dweiXiiiui^vwv,  (which  occurs  in  the  Cod.  Alex.,)  and  have  deriv- 
ed it  from  d'jr'sjXc'w,  which  could  give  no  such  form,  as  it  must 
have  made  d'rsiXoufji.svwv.  The  true  reading  is,  as  I  conjecture, 
dflrnXsijXft^vwv,  (which  might  easily  be  corrupted  into  difsukruu^s^ 
vwv,  especially,  if  read  according  to  the  itacism,)  from  d'j^a^ 
Xg/(p6j,  to  wipe  away,  to  destroy.  The  Septuagint  translators 
use  this  word  in  three  places  for  the  Hebrew  nnn,  (Gen.  vi. 
7.  IV  Kings,  XXI.  13.  Isa.  xliv.  21,)  from  which  they  have 
here  deduced  D'HD,  which  they  may  have  read  as  if  it  had 
been  pointed  D^np."' 


4  7  BocHART,  who,  in  his  Hierozoicon,  T.  i.  p.  524,  edit.  Lips.,  has 
examined  this  place,  wishes  to  read  u7ra.\u<pofiiivav.  In  reference  to  the 
verb  this  is  admissible,  but  he  gives  no  reasons  for  tlie  alteration,  and  it 
i«  too  remote  from  the  letters  of  the  word  !n  question.    Rosenmullek 


446  ON    THE    iNTERPRETATlDar 


II.  Interpretations  of  the  Christian  Fathers 
AND  OF  the  Jewish  Rabbins.* 

"Eotpbsitions  of  the  Fathers. 

Before  the  time  of  Origen,  we  find  nothing  in  the  father^/ 
except  some  occasional  observations  of  a  doctrinal  kind,  in- 
tended to  illustrate  the  places  which  are  referred  to  the  Mes- 
siah, and  these  observations  are  generally  of  a  polemical  cha- 
racter^  aad  directed  against  the  Jews.  See  the  introduction 
to  ch.  vii."^  From  the  age  of  Origen,  whose  works  on  Isaiah 
arc  almost  entirely  lost,"*^  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century^ 


endeavours  to  defend  the  usual  reading :  "  instead  of  the  allegorical^ 
the  translator  has  given  the  proper  reading,  understanding  by  fat  ones, 
or  furnished  with  marrow,  (dTID.)  rich  persons  carried  away  to  foreigrt 
countries."  According  to  Schneider  (Griech.  WSrterb.  lu  158,)  aa-«/- 
KiiufAyfii  h  derived  also  from  aTf-toAo),  equivalent  to  aTrti^u,  to  drire'inio 
slrails^  io  embarrass,  and  the  Arabic  translator  may  have  used  the  pre- 
sent reading,  if  he  had  had  this  derivation  and  meaning  before  his  eyes. 
But  the  knowledge  of  an  ancient  and  unusual  term  is  not  to  be  taken 
for  granted  in  a  translator  of  so  modern  a  date. 

*  There  is  a  very  accurate  list  of  the  older  commentaries  uiitil  the 
year  1754  rn  Calmkt's  Bibl.  Biblioth.,  and  another  in  his  Difctiopary  of 
the  Bible. 

4  0  Through  tte  limited  diffusion  of  the  N.  T.,  and  on  account  of 
the  very  frequent  discussions  with  the  Jews,  the  most  aricierit  Chris- 
tian writers  attach  an  exti'aord'nary  value  to  the  proof-places  from  thd 
O.  T.  See  J.  G.  RosENMiJLLERi  Hist.  Interpretationis  librorum  sacro-* 
rum  inecclesia  Christiana,  Tom.  i.  p.  231,  and  compare  Cramer,  His* 
toria  sententiarum  de  sacra  libronim  V.  T.  auctoritate  ad  Chrislianoa 
spectante.  Lips.  1819.   4,  Comment.  1.  p.  32. 

*  t  He  had  written  on  Isaiah  in  the  three  methods  which  were  usual  in 
his  time,  that  is  to  say,  a  commentary  in  30  books,  extending  to  xxx.  G., 
Scholia,  (o-»fi«»(ri/c,)  and  25  Homilies.  Some  of  the  last  are  still  ex- 
tant. See  Origenis  Opera,  Edit,  de  la  Rue,  T.  hi.  Orig.  Comment. 
Edit.  HuET.  Rothomagi,  1668.  Hieron.  Praef.  ad  Jes.  He  is,  most 
probably,  the  source  from  which  many  interpreters  have  drawn,  and 


or    THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  447 

(for  after  this  period  interpreters  merely  compiled  from  the 
works  of  their  predecessors,)  we  meet  with  a  small  succes- 
sion of  commentators  among  the  fathers,  all  of  whom  unite 
in  making  the  received  version  the  subject  of  their  interpre- 
tations, and,  with  the  exception  of  Jerome,  in  betraying  an 
almost  total  ignorance  of  the  original"  text.  They  find,  also, 
numerous  definite  prophecies  relating  to  the'  New  Testament 
and  later  Christian  periods,  and  add  to  the  historical  sense  an 
allegorical  and  mystical  one,  which  they,  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  consider  as  the  principal  meaning.  In  the  interpreta- 
tions advanced  remarkable  agreement  appears  conspicuous  in 
all  these  commentators,  because  the  later  made  so  much  use 
of  the  earlier.''^  Still,  however,  their  importance  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  aid  they  afford  to  the  history  of  interpretation, 
and  to  the  materials  which  they  add  to  the  documents  of  the 
times ;  the  modern  critic  may  discover  among  them  grains 
of  gold.  With  regard  to  the  more  remarkable  proof-places 
which  relate  to  doctrine,  it  is  necessary,  in  addition  to  those 
writers  who  are  professedly  exegetical,  to  examine  also  the 
dogmatic  and  apologetic  works,  because  such  places  are 
generally  treated  in  them  much  more  extensively. 

1.  Among  the  Greek  Fathers  the  first  who  followed  the 
steps  of  Origen  was  Eusebius,  whose  'X-n-o.avTjjAaTa  hg  'Hrfaiav 
was  first  made  public  by  Montfau^on/*  He  had  the  Hexa- 
pla  before  him  ;  he  compares  very  largely  Aquila,  Symma- 
chus,  and  Theodotion  with  the  Septuagint,  and  connects  the 


particularly  Jerome. — Olher  expositors,  now  lost,  are,  Didtmus,  who 
explained  xl — lxvi.  in  18  volumes,  and  Apollinarics,  who  merely  gave 
brief  views  of  the  contents,  (See  Jer.  Praef.)  also  Eusebius  of  Emesa, 
and  Theodorus  of  Heraclea,  who  are  cited  in  the  Catenae.  See  Mont- 
FAUCONT,  Coll.  Nov.  Patrum,  T.  n.  p.  350. 

4  «  See,  for  example,  Cyrill,  Theodoret,  Jerome,  Ephraem  Syrus, 
on^vi.  1,  3.  vii.  14,  where  the  agreement  is  almost  verbal.  Coiiip, 
Note  58. 

4  0  Bern,  de  Mostfau^on,  Coll.  nova  palrum  et  Scriptorura  Graeco- 
rum  (Paris,  1706,  ii  Tom.  fol.)  T.  i.  p.  357  ss.  with  an  introduction. 
Very  many  passages  are  also  illustrated  in  the  Dempnstrntio  Evapgeliv 
^a,  especially  in  the  7th  and  9th  books. 


448  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION 

literal  interpretation  with  the  ailegoriGal,  although  he  pro- 
fesses to  consider  the  former  as  his  principal  object.^  Some- 
times he  coincides  with  Jewish  interpretations,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, on  vn.  8,  and  at  others  he  controverts  them,  as  on 
V.  20.  Like  most  of  the  fathers,  he  is  fond  of  tracing  in  his- 
tory the  accomplishment  of  every  portion  of  predictions  how- 
ever minute,  and-hence  the  real  historical  point  of  view  is,  of 
course,  entirely  lost.^^  The  commentary  of  Eusebius  is  very 
extensively  used,  and  is  in  fact  transcribed  in  an  exposition  of 
1 — XVI,  attributed  to  Basil  the  great,  who  died  in  the  year 


io  Jerome,  on  xviii.  1,  says  of  him  ;  "Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  after 
he  had  pledged  himself  in  his  title  to  give  a  historical  interpretation, 
runs  out  into  various  senses,  and  upon  reading  his  work,  I  found  it  very 
different  from  what  the  title  promised.  For  whenever  history  fails  him, 
he  passes  on  to  allegory,  and  connects  subjects  which  have  no  affinity  in 
such  a  way,  that  I  am  surprised  at  his  joining  together  in  a  novel  man- 
ner of  discourse  stone  and  iron  in  one  "  mass."  In  truth,  however, 
Jerome  himself  does  not  succeed  much  better  ;  only  he  generally  makes 
a  distinction  between  the  literal  sense  and  the  tropical. 

*  1  Wherever  any  thing  occurs  which  relates  to  destruction,  he  un- 
derstands it  of  the  Roman  devastations  under  Titus,  as  in  i.  5  ss.  xix.  2, 
refers  to  the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  Egypt,  and  the  difficulties 
and  contentions  which  arose  ;  vi.  9,  10,  to  the  obduracy  of  the  Jews  in 
the  time  of  Christ.  In  the  present  day,  we  should  certainly  consider 
many  of  these  applications  as  irrelative  ;  as,  for  example,  that  of  in.  4, 
to  the  childish  folly  of  the  Rabbins  and  Jewish  leaders,  that  of  xviir.  1, 
(after  Symmachus,)  to  the  Jewish  emissaries  and  proselyte-makers,  that 
of  XIX.  1,  to  Christ's  journey  into  Kgypt,  where  the  light  cloud  is  the 
body  of  Christ  himself  born  of  the  virgin.  Some  of  these  interpreta- 
tions, however,  contain  historical  information  of  real  utility.  Thus,  from 
XLiv.  5,  we  learn,  that  the  Gentile  Christians,  when  they  suttered  mar- 
tyrdom, were  accustomed  to  give  themselves  scriptural  names  ;  from 
XLix.  23,  that  the  secular  officers  of  the  provinces,  who  had  formerly 
persecuted  the  Christians,  then,  at  the  emperor's  command,  bent  them- 
selves and  bowed  the  knee  in  the  churches  with  profound  humility,  and 
were  attentive  in  supplying  the  wants  of  the  spiritual. — It  is  not  unim- 
poi'tant  in  reference  to  the  history  of  doctrines,  that  no  mention  is  made 
of  the  Trinity  in  vi.  3,  the  threefold  repetition  being  understood  as  indi- 
cative of  emphasis.  [  And  as  this  repetition  may  very  well  be  thus  ex- 
plained, (comp.  Jer.  xxn.  29.  Ezek.  xxi.  27,)  the  omission  to  notice  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  can  hardly  be  adduced  as  evidence  that  Eusebius 
did  not  believe  it.  That  it  was  the  doctrine  of  the  church  i?i  his  day  ts 
wodeniablc.     Tr  ] 


t 


Of    TU£    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  449 

"^79.*  The  genuineness  of  this  work,  however,  which  in  an 
early  period  was  doubted,  has  been  denied  in  our  own  time 
for  reasons  of  no  slight  weight ;  and  both  on  account  of  its 
tediousness  and  of  its  contents,  which  are,  for  the  most  part, 
of  a  moral  and  allegorical  character,  it  has  but  little  valuc.^ 
The  interpretation  (l^/x^jvsia,)  which  Chrysostom  has  left  of 
the  first  eight  chapters  is  preferable,  to  which  may  be  added 
six  homilies  on  vi.  1.^  The  commentary  of  Cyrill  of  Alex- 
andria, who  died  in  the  year  444,  is  not  so  tiresome  as  that 
of  the  same  writer  on  the  Pentateuch,  but,  notwithstanding 
all  its  prolixity,  (it  occupies  a  tolerably  large  folio  volume,)  it 
contains  but  little  that  is  really  solid  and  to  the  purpose.  Yet 
be  has  not  altogether  neglected  the  literal  explanation  of  the 
Septuagint,  (which  he  seems  to  have  cited  according  to  the 
text  antecedent  to  the  time  of  Origen,)  and  the  grammatical 
application  of  the  Jewish  history  ;  but  of  the  other  versions 
he  makes  no  use  at  all.^  But  all  the  other  writers  in  the 
Greek  church  are  inferior  to  Cyrill's  cotemporary,  Theodo- 
RET,  who  was  suspected  of  heterodoxy,  and  who  died  in  the 
year  457.  The  substance  of  his  commentaries  on  Isaiah  has 
been  published  by  John  Sirmond  from  the  Catenae,  yet  so 
that  some  parts  of  them  seem  to  belong  to  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia.^*    The  reader  will  find  here  all  that  can  be  ex- 


*  [Cave,  in  his  literary  history,  vol.  i-  p.  239,  says^  about  the  year 
370.     Tr.] 

5  2  See  the  writer  of  the  CatenaR,  John  Drungar  in  Montfauqon'» 
Nova  Coll.  r.  n.  p.  351.  Then,  particularly  Garnier's  Praef.  in  T.  i. 
Opp.  Basilii  Mag.  p.  47 — 63.  The  exposition  is  in  T.  i.  pp.  378 — 617, 
Opp.  Edit.  Garnier. 

S3  See  Tom.  i.  p.  1016,  T.  v.  p.  127,  Edit.  Savill.  [T.  vi.  Edit. 
Mont.  ]  Some  of  the  homilies  are  considered  as  spurious.  See  SixTi 
Sinensis,  Bibl.  s.  iv.  p  326. 

5  4  CyRiLLi  Alex.  Opp.  T.  ii.  Edit.  Aubert  (Lutet.  1638,  fol.)  Com- 
pare RosENMiJLLKRi  Hist.  IV.  142  ss.,  Schroeckh's  Kirchcngeschichte 
xvM\.  S.  327.  He  generally  coincides  with  the  Vatican  manuscript 
against  the  Alexandrine,  as,  for  example,  in  that  principal  text  ix.  6, 
whereby  he  loses  the  important  proof-place  for  Christ's  divinity. 

«  5  Sec  Theod.  Opp-  Ed.  Sirmond,  T.  it.  and  Edit.  J.  L.  Schultzt 
'Halae,  1770,  8vo.)   T=  ii.  pp.  165—400.      Compare   Cayc,  Jlist 
57 


450  ON  THK  INTERFRETATIGN 

pected,  in  a  commentator  on  the  Septuagint  merely,  and  in 
the  condition  of  biblical  interpretation  at  that  period ;  viz. 
historical  and  philological  illustrations  drawn  from  the  other 
books  of  Scripture,  analogous  figures  and  scriptural  represen- 
tations, and  frequent  comparisons  of  the  other  Greek  ver- 
sions. The  ?iuthor  confines  himself  to  the  Alexandrine  text 
of  the  Septuagint,  refers  to  the  Hebrew  only  in  difficult  and 
classic  places,  (see  p.  105  on  ix.  6  ;)  but  sometimes  he  uses 
even  the  Syriac,  as,  for  example,  on  vui.  21.  (Comp.  also  on 
Dan.  viii.  23.)  That  in  certain  places,  however,  as  vii.  ix. 
XI.  uii.  no  historical  interpretation  is  to  be  expected,  but  only 
a  prophetical  one,  is  in  no  degree  surprising. — The  commen- 
tary of  Procopius  of  Gaza,  a  teacher  of  eloquence  in  the 
-6th  century,  brings  into  one  view  the  best  of  the  old  Greek 
expositors,  and  may  therefore  be  called  a  Catena,  although  he 
adds  also  original  observations.  It  is  of  importance  for  the 
criticism  of  the  Septuagint  and  of  the  other  Greek  ver- 
sions.*^ Of  the  later  catenae  on  Isaiah  nothing  has  been 
printed.^'' 

2.  Of  the  Latin  church,  we  have  only  one  single  commen- 
tary extant,  that  of  Jerome,  in  IS  books,  written  in  the  year 
410.  See  on  vi.  1.  But  on  account  of  its  copiousness,  and  be- 
cause it  is  the  only  one  which  goes  back  to  the  Hebrew  text. 


Lit.  Scrip.  Eccles.  p.  225,  and  Schultze's  Praef.  ad  T.  i.  The 
complete  commentary  is  to  be  found,  according  to  the  notice  con- 
tained in  catalogues,  in  some  Italian  libraries,  and  yet  the  Halle  editor 
troubled  himself  to  no  purpose,  either  to  get  possession  of  it,  or  to  obtain 
any  certain  account  of  it.  See  Praef.  ad  T.  n.  pp.  8— 11.  Respecting  The- 
odoret  as  an  interpreter  generally,  compare  Rosenmttlier,  ubi  sup.  iv, 
p.  38ss. 

s  «  Procopii  Gazaei  variorum  in  Esaiam  prophetam  commentario- 
rum  epitome,  Graece  et  Latine  edit.  Jo.  Curtkrios,  Paris.  1580,  fol. 
comp.  RosEKMULLER  ubi  sup.  IV.  p.  234  ss.,  Sghroeckb,  XVII.  p.  530, 
Simon  Bibl.  crit.  (Amstelsd.  1708,  12mo.)  T.  i.  p.  179,  and  Lettrcs 
chobies,  iv.  p.  122  ss. 

See  the  notices  in  Fabrich  Bib.  Graec.  voL  vh.  cap.  17,  p.  764. 
Respecting  a  catena  of  John  Drungar,  (^laaffn:  tji;  Afovyyaflms,)  set 
MoNTFAucoN,  Collect.  F&tv.  li.  pp.  350, 353  • 


OF  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAH.  451 

it  is  the  most  important  of  all.®  Much  of  it  is  borrowed  from 
Eusebius,  and  in  part  hterally  translated,^  and  probably  much 
more  from  Origen.  He  adds  the  commentary  to  his  own 
translation,  which  he  had  published  before,  and  which  he 
illustrates,  philologically,  historically  and  tropologically.  The 
philological  or  critical  part  of  his  illustration  consists  in  this, 
that  he  often  gives  the  variations  in  the  Septuagint,  in  the 
three  other  Greek  translations,  and  in  the  old  Vulgate,  and  then 
goes  back  to  the  Hebrew  for  explanations,  which  are  certainly 
of  very  unequal  tenor  and  value.  He  is  particularly  remark- 
able for  frequently  advancing  the  most  forced  etymology  of 
proper  names,  in  order  to  support  a  mystical  signification.^'^ 


5  8  It  is  in  HiERON.  Opp.  T.v.  Edit.  Francof.  T.  iii.  Kdit.  Martianjei, 
T.  iv.  Edit.  Vallars.  Compare  (Engelstoft)  Hieronymus  interpres, 
criticus,  exegeta,  apologeta,  cet.  (Hauniae,  1787,  8vo.)  pp.  129  ss.,  from 
which  the  view  given  by  ^osenmijller,  ubi  sup.  m.  pp.  345  ss.,  is  taken, 
and  my  Geschichte  der  Hebr.  Sprache,  S.  92.  Jerome  mentions  as  his 
predecessor  in  the  Latin  chur  .\  (Praef.  ad  Jes.)  th  -  martyr  Victorinus, 
whom  he  names  as  not  eloquent,  but  learned,  etsi  imperitum  sermone, 
non  tamen  scientia.  i 

5  9  Comp.  Eusebius  and  Jerowe  on  i.  8,  17,  21.  iii.  4,  12  v.  13.  vi. 
11.  vn.  15,  18.  XI.  3,  7.  xn.  1.  xvii.  1,  6.  xix.  1,  12,  18,  19,  23,  &c., 
M0NTFAU90N,  in  his  notes  on  Eusebius,  has  noticed  many  places. 

6  0  Some  examples  of  good  and  important  philological  expositions  are 
the  following:  On  the  word  ny|-|  in  i:  1.  '*  Nou  solum  autem  hicpropheta, 
sed  et  alii,  cum  habeant  in  titulo,  visio  quara  t  i'  Esaias  sive  Abdias, 
non  inferunt  qiiiae  viderint,  v.  o.  vidi  dominum  Sabaoth,  cet,  sed  quae 
dicta  sunt,  narrant,  id  est :  *  audi  ccelum  et  ausculta  terra.'  Prophet® 
enim  prius  dicebantur  tirfenfcs,  cet."  He  means  to  say,  that  u-v^^  does 
not  apply  merely  to  visions,  as  in  ch,  vi.  but  also  to  oracular  declara- 
tions. See  afterwards  on  the  paronomasia  in  v.  7,  on  vik>  >»»>  for 
land  in  xiii.  5,  and  S^n  '^^  *'''^-  ^1'  ^^r  Babylon.  But  along  with  these 
illustrations  we  find  others  so  wretched  and  doubtful,  and  only  half  true  or 
not  at  all  so,  as  to  raakehisstatementsof  but  little  value.  Thuson  vii.  12, 
he  says  :  "  Juxta  Hebraei  sermonis  ambiguitatera  pro  non  tentabo  Dom- 
inum possit  le^i  non-ezaUabo  Dominum.  He  refers  to  a  commutation  of 
nOJ  *"<^  ^flSfy  ^°  ^'"'  ^"^J  ^^  ^^^^  explains  alma  by  "  virgo  abscondUa 
et  secreta,  quae  nunquam  virorum  patuerit  aspectibus,  sed  magna  pa- 
rentum  diligentia  custodita  sit ;"  contrary  to  the  usage  of  language  and 
from  a  false  etymology,  although  admitted  by  modern  writers.  Ifirome 
proceeds  further:  "Lingua  quoque  Punica,  ae  de  Hebraeorum  fonti- 
bus  manare  dicitur,  proprie  virgo  alma  appellatur,"     Importance  has 


452  O^  THE  INTEnrREtATlOTsr 

In  a  historical  point  of  view,  he  has  this  great  fault,  that  hef 
can  scarcely  ever  place  himself  in  the  circumstances  and  feej 
the  relations  of  the  period  of  which  he  is  writing,  that  he  con-* 
siders  every  place  as  if  it  were  disjoined  from  the  others,  en-* 
tirely  confounds  delineations  of  the  present  and  predictions 
of  the  future,  and  is  too  much  inchned  to  refer  the  latter  to  re- 
mote periods."  He  frequently  adds,  moreover,  illustrations 
and  traditions,  which  had  been  communicated  to  him  by  his 
Rabbinical  instructor,  and  which  are  found  again  in  the  Rab- 
bins, as  a  proof  of  a  constant  tradition.''^     From  his  remarks 


been  attached  to  this  remark,  but  let  us  read  further:  "Et  ut  risum 
praebeamus  Judffiis,  nostro  quoque  sermone  alma  sancta  dicitur,  omm- 
Mm  pene  linguarum  verbis  utuntur  Hebraei.  Ut  et  illud  in  Cantico 
Canticorum  de  Grajco  <|>c5«toj»  (pnD{<>  m-  9  )  id  est  ferculum  sibi  fecit 
iSalomo,  quod  et  in  Hebraeo  ita  legimus.  Verbura  quoque  n»ga5[»j^3 
!Zeph.  ni.  18.  those  that  are  removed,  ]  etmensuram  (n'l^B'P.  o,  measure,) 
Hebraei  eodem  modo  et  iisdem  usurpant  sensibus"  (?).  Compare  xin. 
1,  on  X5i^73»  which  he  translates  ont*5,  because  itconsistsmerely  of  burden- 
some predictions,  and  such  as  bring-  destruction ;  also  others  of  the  same 
sort.  The  remark  which  is  made  on  ii.  16.  is  given  merely  as  Jewish 
opinion,  but  certainly  it  is  without  the  least  weight :  <'  Hebraji  putant^ 
lingua  propria  sua  mare  tarsis  appellari,  quando  autem  dicitur  jam,  non 
hebraico  sermone  appellari,  sed  Syriaco.    Comp.  f'j*;  . 

Unfortunate  etymologies  are  these :  *'  Mizraim,  d-ht^ova-tt,  iribulans, 
XIX.  1 ;  Memphis,  I.e.  os,  ex  ore^  ("cj  |^,  readmemp/ii;)  Canaan,  commotio 
or  quasi  respondens,  xix.  18;  Hierusaletn^  i.  e.  visiopacis,  i.  1;  Basan, 
i.  e.  etia-x'JV}!.  Many  of  these  are  probably  taken  from  Philo's  significa- 
tions of  scriptural  names,  which  Origen  and  Jerome  afterwards  trans- 
lated. See  my  Geschichte  der  Hebr.  Spr.  S.  83.  They  are  too  poor  to 
be  attributed  to  Jerome's  Hebrew  teacher. 

Jerome  has,  moreover,  written  the  Hebrew  words  in  Latin  characters, 
and  hence  some  editions  have  attached  an  erroneous  punctuation  to  the 
Hebrew  writing.  See  Simon,  Lettrcs  choisies,  T.  r.  p.  301,  and  com- 
pare ep.  20  ad  Damasura. 

«  »  Thus  he  refers  i.  5 — 7  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  n- 
8,  to  the  condition  of  JElia  Capitolina,  the  corrupters  of  wine,  i.  22,  to 
the  Pharisees  and  heretics  ;  the  new  judges,  i.  26,  to  the  Apostles;  ii. 
4,  to  the  peace  which  prevailed  in  the  Roman  empire  at  the  time  of 
Christ.  Comp.  Luther's  judgment  respecting  such  historical  exposi- 
tions, in  $  9.  So  much  less  value  should  we  attach  to  his  opinion  with 
respect  to  the  arrangement  of  the  Collection.  See  Einleit,  S.  I&.  [  §  3. 1 
fl2  Se^  on  I.  10.  VI.  1.  vii.  8.  xiii.  10.  xiv.  19,  xx.  6.  Something  of 
this  sort  is  found  in  Eusebius,  for  example,  on  vn.  8.    But  when  there  is 


I 


at  TftE  fROPHET  ISAlArf. 


45S 


ulso  which  relate  to  geography  and  antiquities,  most  valuable 
information  may  be  obtained.*^  But  altogether  insipid  is  his 
allegorical  and  mystical  interpretation,  ("  tropologia,")  the 
greater  part  of  which  he  probably  borrowed  from  Origen,  re- 
specting the  value  of  which  he  expresses,  with  his  usual  in- 
consistency, very  different  opinions,  but  which  nevertheless 
he  seems  to  estimate  very  highly,  and  to  consider  as  the  most 
important.^*  His  mode  of  treatment  also  is  very  dissimilar. 
Sometimes  he  gives  almost  exclusively  historical  interpreta- 
tions, as,  for  instance  on  xui.  14,  and  sometimes  nothing  but 
tropological,  as  on  xix. ;  so  that  the  reader  can  hardly  believe 
that  he  has  only  one  writer  before  him.  A  multitude  of  these 
interpretations  relate  to  views  and  circumstances,  which  be- 
long to  events  connected  with  Christianity .«* 


any  opposition  to  Christian  vieWs,  he  contends  the  point  with  earnest- 
ness.    See,  for  instance,  ii.  22.  , 

8  3  See  on  dx^  in  xix.  7,  on  ^u^-oc  in  xix.  10,  and  on  the  state  of  Baby- 
lon in  xni,  at  the  end.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  extraordinary  that  he 
should  identify  Rebla  in  xiii.  1,  with  Antioch 

«  *  l^raef.  ;  *'  Post  historia)  veritatera  spiritualiter  accipienda  sunt  om- 
nia: et  sic  Judaea  et  Jerusalem,  Babylon  et  Philistim,  Moab  et  Damas- 
cus, ^gyptus  et  desertum  mare,  Idumaea  et  Arabia,  ac  valiis  Sion  vel 
vallis  visionis  et  ad  extremum  Tyrus  et  visio  quadrupedum  (xxx.  6.)  in- 
telligenda  sunt,  ut  cuncta  quaeramus  in  sensu:  et  in  omnibus  his,  quasi 
sapiens  Faulus  Apostolus  jaciatfundamentum,  quod  non  est  aliud,  v  as- 
ter Christum  Jesum."  On  xiv.  1,  2,  he  calls  the  historical  interpretation 
which  he  had  given,  an  ea^g  of  dust  in  the  manner  of  the  serpent,  "  in 
modum  serpentis  terrain  comedo.^'  On  the  contrary,  xui.  19,  and  vii.  11, 
he  expresses  himself  thus:  "  Legi  in  cujusdam  commentariis  hunc  locum 
per  allegoriam  extenuatam,  sed  nos  elixas  agni  carnes  non  comedimas, 
verum  assas:  et  quae  in  nobis  possint  omnes  voluptatum  siccare  pituitas, 
re  sacramentum  fidei  nostrae,  dum  plus  sapimus,  quam  oportet  sapere, 
negligamus." 

6*  The  firebrands  in  vii.  4,  show  him  the  wisdom  of  this  world, 
philosophy  and  hereby,  the  euH  of  which  is  burning  ^in  hell);  in  vii.  6, 
Marcion  is  denoted,  who  wished  to  set  the  son  of  the^oorf  God  ("7K2£3) 

••:  IT 

for  his  Christ,  but  whose  attempt  proved  abortive.  By  Egypt  in  ch. 
XIX.  we  are  not  to  understand  the  country  of  that  name,  for  then  much 
of  the  prophecy  would  not  be  appropriate,  as,  for  instance  v.  24,  but  it 
should  be  explained  of  the  wicked  world  and  sinful  spirit  o£  the  age. 


454  ON  THE  lNTERPRETATlQJ<f 

3.  On  the  Syriac  version  we  have  a  commentary  in  the 
same  language  by  the  celebrated  Ephraim,  the  Syrian,  who  died 
A.  D.  378.^  Although  his  expositions  are  brief  and  not  in 
all  respects  complete,  yet,  so  far  as  relates  to  a  correct  appre-* 
hension  of  the  historic  sense,  he  is  far  superior  to  his  prede- 
cessors in  the  Greek  church,  which  no  doubt  was  greatly  ow- 
ing to  the  superiority  of  the  translation  that  was  the  subject 
of  his  commentary.  Like  Jerome,  he  usually  gives,  in  the 
first  place,  and  where  the  passages  do  not  relate  to  the  Mes- 
siah, simply  the  historic  sense,  to  which  he  then  adds  the  pro- 
phetic. Some  examples  from  Vn — ix^  may  be  sufficient  to 
show  his  manner. 

On  the  words  in  vn.  15,  "  before  the  child  shall  know  to 
distinguish  between  good  and  evil,  the  land  shall  be  forsaken, 
&c."  he  comments  thus :  "  also  the  land  was  really  forsaken 
by  the  two  kings.  But  he  rather  intends  to  declaie,  that  the 
country,  that  is,  the  Jewish  nation,  was  forsaken,  previously  to 
the  time  when  the  son  of  Mary  was  able  to  distinguish  good 
from  evil."  Herehejias  in  mind  the  fact,  that  the  Jews  were, 
at  the  time  of  Christ's  birth,  in  subjection  to  the  Romans,  and 
obliged  to  pay  capitation-tax. 

On  VIII.  1,  "  write  thereon  with  a  man's  pen,"  (in  the  Sy- 
riac, '*  a  man's  writing/')  he  remarks  :  "  that  is,  not  with 
writing  which  is  hard  to  be  read,  but  make  the  strokes  dis^ 
tinct,  so  that  they  may  be  clearly  seen  ;  thus  write  it  with  a 
man's  writing,  that  is,  such  as  shall  be  clear  and  intelligible  to 
every  man."    * 

On  V.  4 :  "  Before  the. son  of  Isllah  shall  be  old  enough  to 
call  father  and  mother,  Tiglathpileser  shall  come,  and  put  to 
death  Rezin,  king  of  Damascus,  and  in  a  short  time,  in  the 
days  of  Pekah,  will  lead  away  captive  the  Samaritans." 


and  the  light  cloud  r.  1,  of  the  body  of  the  holy  virgin  Mary»  which 
carried  Christ,  in  ord  "  lo  conquer  them. 

c  The  commentary  on  Isaiah  may  be  found  in  T.  n.  pp.  20 — 97  of 
the  edition  of  his  works  by  the  three  Maronites  J.,  S.,  and  St.  Ev.  Asse- 
kjlk,  and  JPetek  Benedict,  published  at  Rome,  1732 — 46,  in  6  vols.  fol. 
The  Latin  translation  is  in  the  second  volume  by  the  last  named  scholar, 
and  is  rather  a  free  paraphrase.  With  a  ^ood  deal  of  extraneons  matter. 


OF    TU£    PROPHET    ISAlAH.  455 

On  IK.  6 :  **  A  child  is  born  to  us,  a  son  is  given  to  us." — • 

Although  some  parts  of  what  is  here  said"  (meaning,  of  what 
follows,)  "  apply  to  ilezekiah,  yet  there  are  other  parts  which 
are  not  applicable  to  him.  And  even  in  those  which  do  ap- 
ply to  him,  there  is  reference  to  the  mysteries  of  his  Lord, 
who  should  appear  in  his  land."  Afterwards,  on  the  appella- 
tion, prince  of  peace  :  "  this  applies  to  Hezekiah,  on  account 
of  his  mildness.  The  increase  of  his  government  refers  to  the 
prolongation  of  his' life  (Is.  xxxvui.  5.),  and  the  perpetuity  of 
peace  applies  to  our  Lord  (Christ). 

V.  7  ;  "  Even  for  ever.  This  is  to  be  understood  as  in  the 
salutation,  let  my  lord,  the  king,  live  forever."  See  Neh.  n. 
3.  Dan.  n.  4.  He  means  to  say,  that  it  signifies  a  long  time, 
and  is  not  to  be  taken  literally. 

From  the  total  want  of  all  definite  principles  of  interpre- 
tation, the  reader  will  find,  along  with  these  interpretations 
jof  the  better  class,*  some  others  which  are  certainly  of  the 
most  extravagant  kind.  For  example,  he  refers  the  moun? 
tain,  mentioned  m  ii.  2,  to  Golgotha,  consecrated  by  the  death 
of  Christ,  the  union  of  the  wolf  and  lamb,  in  xi.  6,  to  the 
Christian  church,  the  wolf  denoting  heretics,  and  xi.  7,  to  the 
common  enjoyment  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  eucharist, 
— "  The  lion  eats  straw  like  the  ox  :  this  teaches  us,  that  the 
righteous  along  with  the  sinful  will  eat  of  the  living  body  on 
the  altar." 

In  this  commentary  fragments  of  other  Syriac  interpreters 
are  occasionally  interpolated,  as,  for  instance,  that  of  St.  Ja- 
cob in  VI.  7.  These  are  usually  in'the  spirit  of  the  interpre- 
tations  last  quoted.^' 


*  [  The  looseness  of  the  author's  principles  on  the  subject  of  pro- 
phecy, would  lead  him  to  consider  as  most  correct,  those  illustrations, 
which  limited  the  prophet's  views  to  events  nearly  or  quite  contempo- 
raneous with  his  own  age.  This  remark  may  serve  as  a  caution  to  the  read- 
er, and  dispose  him  to  qualify  some  of  the  author's  observations.     Tr.  ] 

•  T  la  what  spirit  the  Abbot  Joachim,  who  died  A.  D.  1202,  and  who 
was  so  renowned  for  his  apocalyptic  dreams,  and  the  holy  Thomas 
A<ltjisAs  must  have  commented  on  Isaiah,  may  be  judied-  of  from  the 


45<J  ON  THK  JHTEHrRETATlON 

Rabbinical  Expositions. 

A  second  class  of  the  old  expositors  is  formed  by  the  Rab- 
bins. Although  these  writers  began  to  be  distinguished  and 
flourished  principally  from  the  12th  to  the  15th  century,  yet, 
in  addition  to  their  own  views,  they  contain  ihose  of  the 
more  ancient  interpreters,  as  is  proved  by  the  coincidence  of 
their  illustrations  with  what  the  fathers  have  occasionally 
given  from  Jewish  expositions.  All  of  them  are  superior  to 
the  fathers  as  grammatical  and  historical  commentators,  and 
the  weak  and  exceedingly  tasteless  allegorical  and  cabbalisti- 
cal  manner  of  expounding  which  distinguished  the  earlier 
ages,  begins  with  many  of  them  to  give  place  to  an  improved 
system  of  interpretation/' 

1.  The  way  to  such  a  method  of  explaining  scripture  was 
opened  in  the  latter  half  of  the  li2th  century  by  the  two  co- 
temporaries,  Jarchi  (Rashi)  and  Aben  Ezra,  both  of  whom 
composed  complete  commentaries  on  the  Old  Testament. 
The.former^^  adheres  closely  to  the  Chaldee  version,  which 
is  generally  his  guide  in  showing  the  sense.  He  gives  also 
historical  illustrations,  and  for  the  most  part  follows  those, 
however  insipid,  v^hich  tradition  had  sanctioned.  As  he  was 
a  strong  Talmudist,  these  were  very  familiar  to  him,  and  he 
does  not  rise  above  them.     He  frequently  gives  the  corres- 


known  character  of  these  men,  their  education,  learning,  habits  of 
tliought,  and  whole  mental  constitution.  The  exposition  of  the  former 
was  printed  at  Cologn  in  1577,  4to,  and  that  of  the  latter  at  Lyons  in 
1531. 

« 9  See  particularly  Aben  Ezra's  Preface  to  the  Pentateuch,  and 
compare  Simon's  Hist.  Crit.  du  V.  T.  L.  in  c.  3. 

6  0  His  work  is  coiitained  in  Buxtorf 's  Rabbinical  Bible  (Basil.  1618, 
1619,  4  vol,  fol.)  aloog  the  margin  of  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  texts. 
It  was  printed  also  at  Thessalonica  in  1600,  and  at  Verona  in  1661. 


OF  THE  FROPHET  JSAIAH.  457 

ponding  words  in  his  vernacular  tongue,  the  French,  which, 
as  they  are  written  in  Hebrew  characters,  are  often  extreme- 
ly puzzling.  *°  He  is  also  in  other  respects  sometimes  ob- 
scure, so  that  the  very  careful  Latin  translation  which  has 
been  made  of  his  work,  and  which  is  accompanied  by  learn- 
ed annotations,  is  a  very  acceptable  assistance.'' — Far  supe- 
rior to  him  is  Ahen  Ezra^^  in  respect  to  independence  of 
mind,  freedom  from  prejudice,  correct  exegetical  views,  and 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  language.  Although  he  does  not 
reject  the  use  of  traditional  interpretations,  and  generally 
touches  the  prejudices  of  his  people  with  caution,  yet  every 
where  the  reflecting  grammatical  and  historical  interpreter 
shows  himself,  and  as  such  he  stands  unrivalled  in  his  nation. 
He  is  acquainted  also  with  the  Arabic  language,  which  he 
often  happily  employs  to  throw  light  on  the  Hebrew."^ 

As  no  accurate  representation  of  the  different  character 
of  these  commentators  can  be  obtained  from  the  quotations 
6f  particular  passages  which  are  made  in  the  commentary 
that  follows  this  introduction,  I  will  here  present  to  the  reader 
the  most  important  remarks  of  both  on  chap.  vi.  1 — 6,  and 
vn.  1 — 9,  in  order  to  enable  him  to  make  a  comparison. 

Jarchi. 

VI.  1.  The  year  of  Uzziah's  death  is  the  year  in  which  he 
became  leprous.  God  sat  on  his  throne  in  heaven,  and  his 
feet  were  placed  upon  the  ark  of  the  covenant  in  the  tern- 


10  For  example,  TB^ID  poser,  JJ'JirtD  and  1^31  rt3  tisohs,  l3Jty"i:JX 
engraissant,  jyifl'^3  brosses. 

7  «  R.  SALomoNis  Jarchi,  ''^->  dicti,  commentarius  Hebraicus,  in 
propbetas  majores  et  minores,  ut  et  Jobum  et  Psalmos,  Latine  versus  at- 
que  notis  criiicis  et  philologicis  illustratus,  a  Jo.  Frid.  Breithau1»t 
Gothae,  1713.  4to. 

7a  Printed  in  Buxtorf's  Bible   vol.  m.  fol.  511 — 520  after  IsaiaH; 
also  separately  at  Venice  in  1526,  fol.,  and  at  Basil  in  1619. 

7  3  He  is  not  here,  however,  to  be  implicitly  trusted.     J^ee  on  v.  <?, 
and  comp.  in.  9. 

58 


458  ON  THK  interpiie'i;atk>n 

pie.  He  sat  to  pronounce  sentence  on  Uzziah. — '2.  The  Se- 
raphim stood  S^sp,  that  is,  in  heaven,  )\  in  order  to  serve 
him.  The  covering  of  the  feet  was  done  from  modesty,  that 
the  whole  body  should  not  be  exposed. — 3.  One  cried  to  the 
other :  that  is,  they  gave  each  other  (the  more  exalted  angels 
gave  to  the  lower)  the  permission  to  begin,  that  one  should 
not  begin  before  the  other,  and  the  burning  be  faulty.  (In 
the  Synagogues  something  like  this  took  place.)  The  three- 
fold holy  is  to  be  illustrated  after  the  Targum. — 4.  nT^j*  is 
used  for  the  posts,  because  they  were  measured  with  the  cu- 
bit, rvpv.  The  quaking  of  the  threshold  refers  to  the  earth- 
quake which  God  sent  in  the  time  of  Uzziah,  (Zech.  xiv.  5,) 
as  a  punishment  on  account  of  his  sins. — 5.  ^n^Dn:,  comp. 
Judg.  xui.  22.  Zeph.  i.  11.  Of  unclean  lips,  that  is,  defiled 
by  sins. — 6.  nsx"^  and  •']?f*i  occur  here,  and  in  i  Kings  xix.  6, 
in  Elijah ;  in  other  places  it  is  written  with  w.  Whence  comes 
the  -a  ?  This  is  used  in  Isaiah  and  Elijah,  in  places  where 
they  bring  unfounded  accusations  (N^noSn  delatoria)  against 
Israel.  Wherefore  God  spoke  to  an  angel :  '  smite  (vi^'^) 
the  mouth  of  this  prophet.'  Hence  the  y  (!  !  !). — 7.  The 
touch  with  the  coal  must  be  chastisement.  But  what  was  the 
prophet's  strength,  that  the  coal,  which  the  angel  was  obliged 
to  take  up  with  the  tongs,  could  be  applied  to  his  mouth  with- 
out injuring  him  !  In  Tanchuma  it  is :  stronger  than  the  an- 
gels are  they  who  do  his  word,  these  are  the  prophets. — 8. 
Whom  shall  1  send  ?  I  have,  saith  God,  sent  Amos,  but  the 
Jews  called  him  a  stutterer,  because  he  had  a  stammering 
tongue.     (See  Rashi  on  Amos  vii.  14.) 

vu.  1.  Why  is  the  genealogy  of  Ahaz  placed  here  ?  The 
scripture  intends  us  to  understand,  that  God  has  delivered 
him  on  account  of  his  pious  ancestors.  Because  he  himself 
was  irreligious,  he  is  not  mentioned  in  v.  2,  but  the  house  of 
David, — 2.  r\ry^  is  feminine,  in  reference  to  noS?.  He  was 
the  more  terrified,  because  he  had  already  sustarned  a  defeat. 
See  n  Chron.  xxvni.  6.  It  is  said  in  Bereshit  Rabba,  that 
the  unproductive  trees  are  more  agitated  than  the  fruitful. 
—3.  ii'2  aiB?^  iNB^,  the  remainder,  who  will  become  converted 


OP   THE   PROPHET    ISAIAH.  459 

by  means  of  Isaiah,  they  shall  be  my  children.  Fuller* s field; 
after  Jonathan.  The  Rabbins  say,  that  Ahaz  humbled  him- 
self before  Isaiah,  because  he  had  covered  over  his  head 
with  a  fuller* s  lie  strainer.  Sanhed.  fol.  104,  1. — 4.  "^OBfn, 
that  is,  be  at  rest,  like  wine  on  its  lees,  {'"^^^*  "iV,) — 6.  nr^^p3» 
we  will  excite  them  by  war,  n:;?*pD3,  we  will  make  it  even, 
like  a  plain,  (nrp3,)  that  they,  like  us,  may  be  subjected  to 
one  king.  Ben  Tabel :  according  to  Jonathan,  the  son  that 
pleases  us  ('Sx  did)  ;  it  may  also  be  explained  thus  :  who  is 
not  good  in  the  sight  of  God.  According  to  the  Gematry? 
Tabel  is  Albam,  equivalent  to  kSd"«,  thus  :  the  son  of  Remlus. 
— 8.  For  the  computation  of  the  sixty-five  years  see  the 
commentary  in  loc. 


Aben  Ezra. 

VI.  1.  The  ancients  tell  us,  that  death  is  here  put  for  leprosy, 
and  understand  it  of  the  leprosy  of  Uzziah  which  was  inflict- 
ed on  him  as  a  punishment  for  burning  incense.  But  it  may 
be  explained,  according  to  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word, 
of  Isaiah's  beginning  to  prophecy  in  the  last  year  of  Uzziah's 
life  :  and  then  this  will  be  the  first  prophecy.  The  train  is 
that  belonging  to  the  throne,  for  it  is  usual  with  kings  to 
spread  long  vestments  over  their  thrones. — 2.  Seraphim 
(burning  ones)  :  these  are  so  called,  because  they  burned  his 
mouth.  )h  SV3p  is  equivalent  to  r^r  around  him,  on  the  right 
and  left,  as  is  the  practice  with  great  kings.  The  covering  of 
the  face  is  to  be  taken  as  that  of  the  feet  in  Moses,  (Ex.  xxxiii. 
22.)  it  is  a  mark  of  honour. — 3.  It  must  not  be  concluded 
from  r?!  ha  nr,  that  there  were  only  two  of  them  ;  there  are 
many.  The  threefold  repetition  signifies,  that  they  constantly 
thus  cried,  as  in  Jer.  vn.  4,  xxn.  29,  mn^  hyn  and  yij« 
are  three  times  repealed. — 4.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  u^^^i^is 
in  the  past  time,  and  Ji-p;  in  the  future,  as  is  usual  with  He- 
brew writers,  for  the  sake  of  elegance  (?). — 5.  *n^DiJ  is  syno- 
nymus  with  ''Pf^^h  He  applies  the  phrase,  of  unclean  lips,  to 
the  people,  who  were  impure  in  language  and  conduct. — 6. 


460  OS  THE  INTERrREf  ATION 

s]^  with  Kamei^'Chatuph  from  =)^j?,  c|iri  from  *)*j?.  Pure,  not 
ordinary  fire,  was  upon  the  altar. — ^7.  The  sin  of  the  prophet, 
which  was  expiated,  consisted  of  sinful  words,  since  he  had 
spoken  as  men  of  the  world. — 8.  ijS  iV  'o  is  spoken  by  Je- 
hovah to  the  Seraphs ;  hence  the  plural  u*?. — ^We  see  also 
from  what  is  said,  that  this  must  be  the  first  oracle,  because 
before  it  the  prophet  was  unclean. 

vii.  1.  hy  vh  refers  to  Rezin.  Comp.  ;:;.  3. — %  Ephraim 
stands  for  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  because  the  kings 
were  originally  taken  from  this  tribe. — 3.  Shear  Jashub  is  the 
name  of  the  prophet's  son,  as  I  explain  it,  (lyiQX  njsrxD.)  The 
derivation  of  pa  from  yn  is  ungrammatical, — 4.  '^pii''7  (•^*^^«) 
means  :  remain  on  thy  lees  ;  but  "io'^>n  [Milel)  has  the  signifi- 
cation of,  watch,  preserve. — 6.  The  son  of  Tabeel :  some  say 
that  this  stands  for  xSd-),  but  this  is  trifling.  The  truth  is,  it  is 
the  name  of  some  Syrian  or  Israelitish  nobleman. 

This  may  be  sufficient  to  show%  how  little  honour  it  does  to 
the  taste  and  judgment  of  the  Jews,  when  they  prefer  the  su- 
perstitious and  often  trifling  Jarchi  to  the  clear  thinking  and 
investigating  Aben  Ezra. 

3.  Much  more  extensive  than  both  these  writers  is  the  com- 
mentary of  D  .viD  KiMCHi  on  the  prophets.^*  He  flourished 
about  ten  years  later,  and  endeavours  to  unite  the  most  im- 
portant matter  of  both  his  predecessors.  To  grammatical  il- 
lustration he  adds  various  meanings,  and  introduces  prolix 
^controversial  questions,  without  any  connexion,  on  points  of 
history  and  doctrine.  His  work  contains  also  several  polemic 
places  directed  against  the  Christians,  whom  he  calls  D^rp,  he- 
retics, against  whom  he  probably  inherited  a  hatred  from  his 
father,  Joseph  Kimchi,  who  was  the  author  of  many  contro- 
versial works.  These  places  are  usually  suppressed  in  the 
printed  editions  by  the  censor,  and  in  manuscripts  they  are 


"7  4  His  commentary  is  printed  in  the  Rabbinical  Bibles  of  Bomberg 
and  BuxToRF,  on  the  margin  of  the  text.  Wolf  has  given  a  list  of  the 
various  editions.  See  Bibl  Heb.  T.  i.  p.  301.  A  Latin  translation  of 
the  Commentary  on  Isaiah  by  C«sar  Maxajtimeus  appeared  at  Florence* 
?n  1774 


p 


or   THE    PROPHET   ISAIAU.  461 

in  part  erased,  both  by  the  Christians  through  polemic  zeal, 
and  by  the  Jews  themselves  through  fear  of  the  inquisitorial 
and  other  persecutions.  Such  places  in  Isaiah  are,  ii.  18, 
where  the  Christians  are  called  idolators,  because  they  wor- 
ship the  image  of  Christ;  xxv  3.  xxvi.  5.  xxxiv.  1,  ss.  lxui. 
1,  ss.,  where  Edom,  devoted  to  destruction,  is  explained  of 
Rome,  the  chief  city  of  Christendom  ;  xlix.  6.  lui.  1,  ss.  vii. 
14,  ss.,  where  the  reference  to  Christ  is  opposed;  lavi.  17, 
where  the  self-consecration  of  the  idolators  is  applied  to  the 
sign  of  the  cross  made  by  Christians,  who  are  also  identified 
with  the  eaters  of  swine's  flesh.  It  is,  at  the  same  time,  evi- 
dent from  this,  that  his  exposition  must,  in  part,  have  deserted 
the  station  of  history.  In  the  philological  observations  of  his 
father,  the  Arabic  is  frequently  employed. 

In  proof  of  what  has  been  said,  it  may  be  proper  to  intro- 
duce here  some  of  the  places  which  are  entirely  suppressed 
in  the  printed  editions.  On  xlix.  6,  he  remarks  thus  :  "  With 
regard  to  the  Christians,  who  explain  this  verse  of  him  that 
was  crucified,  saying,  that  he  is  a  light  of  the  nations,  because 
he  hath  enlightened  the  eyes  of  the  nations  even  to  the  ends  of 
the  earth  ;  tell  them,  that  if  he  were  a  God  he  had  not  been 
a  servant.  As  it  is  further  said,  my  God  is  my  strength^  he 
had  no  strength  of  himself,  and  consequently  was  not  God. 
And  how  has  he  also  enlightened  by  his  faith  the  eyes  of  the 
nations  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  while  a  large  proportion  of 
the  nations  remain  who  have  not  received  his  faith,  the 
Israelites  and  Ishmaelites."  The  Pisaro  edition  adds :  and 
again,  as  he  says,  God  is  his  strength,  to  deliver  him  from  the 
hand  of  his  enemies,  lo  !  he  has  not  been  yet  delivered,  nor 
preserved  from  the  power  of  his  enemies,  who  aimed  at  his 
life,  and  brought  evil  upon  him. 


7  5  PococKB  has  pointed  out  and  supplied  these  places,  as  far  as  re» 
lates  to  the  prophets,  partly  from  the  edition  printed  at  Pesaro  in  1515, 
and  partly  from  two  Oxford  manuscripts.  See  Not.  ad  Portam  Moais, 
pp.  318 — 343.  In  the  editions  and  in  other  manuscripts  the  Persians  and 
Samaritans  are  sometimes  introduced  instead  of  the  Christians  and  Ma- 
Hommcdans 


40^  ON   THE    INTERPRETATION 

On  Liii.  1,  [lti.  13,]  it  runs  as  follows  :  To  the  Christians, 
who  explain  this  of  the  crucified,  you  must  answer, — how  can 
k  be  said  :  he  shall  be  blessed,  exalted  and  extolled,  and  very 
high  ?  As  man  he  was  not  elevated  and  exalted,  [  except  on 
the  wood  to  which  he  was  fastened  ;*  ]  as  God  he  was  so  from 
the  beginning.  But  it  says  also ;  )D^  ;rij,  (r.  8.)  Here  it 
must  mean  i^,  for  loS  is  equivalent  to  '-nS,  and  plural/^ — It 
is  ;  he  shall  see  posterity,  {v.  10.)  As  man  he  had  no  posterity  ; 
and  if  this  be  interpreted  of  the  divinity,  and  posterity  be  ex- 
plained by  followers  or  disciples,  this  is  contrary  to  usage,  for 
disciples  are  never  called  sons.''  But  God  has  no  posterity. 
Further  we  read  :  he  shall  live  long  (ubi  sup.)  As  man  he 
did  not  live  long.  But  could  it  be  said  of  him  as  God,  that 
long  life  should  be  granted  him  as  a  reward  ?  does  not  his  life 
continue  from  everlasting  to  everlasting. — Lastly,  {v.  12  ;)  he 
made  intercession  for  the  trangressors.  But  were  he  God 
himself,  to  whom  could  he  direct  his  intercession  ? 

The  same  bitter  and  open  hostility  to  Christianity  is  found 
also  in  the  commentary  of  Don  Isaac  Abarbenel,  compos- 
ed about  the  year  1496,'^  the  most  extensive  and  also  the  most 


*  This  clause  is  wanting  in  the  Pisaro  edition. 

7  6  KiMCHi,  forgetting  himself,  contradicts  this  remark  in  another 
work.     See  his  Heb.  Gram.  fol.  266.  pag.  1.  Ed.  Venet.  8. 

7  7  Maimonides  very  justly  opposes  this,  appealing,  among  other  ex- 
pressions, to  this,  D'X'^jn  ''}2f  sons  of  the  prophets.  See  Pococke 
ubi  sup.  p.  433.  The  very  same  trope  is  used,  when,  in  the  present  day, 
Christians  are  called  in  the  East,  [  -^vj.aa».+))  cjj^Ji,/o  oo«  ]  those  who 
are  of  the  rare  of  Christ.  See  Steph.'Schultz  in  the  Collection  of 
Travels,  by  Paulus,  vu.  p.  49. 

7  8  On  Abarbenel,  see  the  article  Abrabanele.  by  J.  M.  Hartmann  in 
the  Hall.  Encyclopadie,  i.  s.  150  ff.  The  commentary  on  the  prophets 
was  printed  at  Pesaro  in  1520,  fol.,  and  at  Amsterdam  in  1641,  fol.  under 
the  title:  '7X32"13i<  pnr  |n  .  .  .  "l^HrD  D^HN  D'i<'3J  hp  B^n'S.  A 
Latin  translation  by  Jo.  Henr.  Maids  appeared  at  Frankfort  in  1711, 
4to.,  and  an  earlier  one  at  Amsterdnm  in  1641,  fol.  Only  the  veiy  rare 
edition  of  Pesaro  contains  the  passages  against  the  Christians,  (see  de 
Rossi,  Bibliotheca  Judaica  Antichristiana,  p.  7,  ss.)  in  opposition  to 
which  many  writers,  as  Dantz,  Constantine  L'Empereur,  A.  Pfeif- 
FEE,  and  others,  have  defended  the  more  ancient,  and  often  unhistorical 
'doctrine  and  interpretation.— An  examination  of  all  the  places  of  Isaiab 


OF   THE   PROPHET    ISAIAH.  463 

tedious  of  all.     Peculiar  to  him  is  that  tiresome  manner,  like 
the  scholastic  writers,  of  throwing  in,  at  every  chapter  or  sec- 


whicb  are  applied  by  Christians  to  Jesus  and  to  Christian  doctrines,  with 
the  view  of  showing  their  irrelevancy,  is  contained  in  an  exegetical  po- 
lemic work,  which  goes  through  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament  with 
this  design.  It  is  entitled  :  Sepher  Nizzarhon  jashan,  and  is  containf-d  in 
Wagenseil's  teia  iyrnea  SatantB^  AUdorJi,  lt>81,  pp.  78 — 111.  Where  it 
opposes,  by  appealing  to  the  connexion,  the  historical  references  to  Jesus 
and  his  death  in  certain  places,  as  vii.  14,  ix.  1,  ss.  xi.  1,  ss.  lii.  10 — liii. 
12,  it  will  have  the  historical  interpreter  on  its  side,*  and  it  is  often  suc- 
cessful agninst  the  arbitrary  expositions  of  Christian  cotemporaries, 
who,  for  example,  found  Jesus  pointed  out  in  xxv.  9,  xxvi.  9,  lu.  1,  xlv. 
1,  (in  Coresh,)  lix.  20,  lxi.  1.  We  find  here  again  also  some  expositions 
which  are  given  by  the  fathers  :  for  example,  the  government  on  his 
shoulder  in  ix.  6,  explained  of  the  cross  which  Christ  bore,  as  in  Cyrill; 
XXXV.  10,  XLix.  13,  of  the  Christian  souls  delivered  from  hell  by  Jesus, 
and  others  of  the  same  kind.  In  short,  as  far  as  this  controversial  work 
maintains  the  defenj^ive,  it  is  tolerable,  and  keeps  to  the  point  of  history. 
But  when  it  attacks,  the  reader  scarcely  knows  w  heth<  r  to  believe  his 
eyes.  It  must,  however,  be  confessed,  that,  as  to  the  principle,  the  fathers 
have  done  no  better,  and  such  self-defence  and  bitterness  are  at  least  ve- 
ry readily  to  be  accounted  for  in  a  people  reduced  probably  to  despera- 
tion, (the  work  seems  to  have  been  composed  in  Spain,)  by  the  priests 
and  inquisition.     Thus  mx  '^  "•  ^^t  ^^  explained  of  the  man,  who  an- 

T  T 

nounced  himself  as  a  God,  and  who  should  no  longer  be  trusted;  v.  8, 
of  the  monks  (o'n^J*  hald-headtd,)  and  priests,  who  seized  all  the  land 

•   T- 

to  themselves,  and  v.  11,  of  the  gluttony  of  the  monks  in  their  monas- 


*  [  It  will  undoubtedly  have  on  its  side  the  German  neologist,  and  the 
infidel  of  every  name  and  country,  who  would  undermine  Christianity, 
by  injuring  the  credit  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  t)y  weak- 
ening our  faith  in  the  inspired  assurances  of  the  prophets,  that  God  would 
send  a  spiritual  deliverer  for  'he  benefit  of  mankind  ;  but  the  man,  who 
receives  the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  and  believes  in  the  divine  origin  of 
the  Gospel,  will  not  very  readily  admit  a  principle,  which  takes  it  for 
granted,  that  Christ  or  his  Apostles  or  both  have  either  mistaken  or  per 
verted  the  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament  writers. — It  may  be  expedient, 
although  it  can  hardly  be  necessary,  again  to  remind  the  reader,  that  the 
author  rejects  the  doctrine  ol  inspiration,  and  that  his  philosophy  will 
not  allow  him  to  believe  in  miracles.  The  translator  supf)o&es  it  prefera- 
ble to  give  the  sentiments  of  his  original,  with  this  accompanying  caution, 
than  to  omit  a  note  which  contains  information  not  accessible  to  an  Eng- 
lish reader.     Tr.  ] 


4454  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION 

tioii,  a  multitude  of  subtle  questions,  which    he    then  an- 
swers largely  enough.     The  Arabic  commentary  of  Tan- 
chum  of  Jerusalem  on  the  prophets,  from  which  P<jcocke 
and  especially    S*  hnurker   have   given   specimens,    which 
make   us  wish  to  possess  the   whole,  is  yet  preserved  in 
manuscript  at  Oxford."^    We   have  therefore   no  other  wri- 
ters to  mention,  except   Salomo    bkn    Me  lech,  who,  in   his 
Michlal  Jophi,"°  gives  almost  exclusively   grammatical   and 
lexicographical    expositions,    which     are    generally     taken 
froni  Kimchi's  works.     But  for  this  very  reason,  and  on  ac-, 
count  of  the  brevity  and  precision  of  his  statements,  he  is  ve- 
ry useful.     The  best  interpretations  of  Jarchi  may  be  found 
in   abundance  in  the  Postillae  of  Nicolads  de  Lyra,  who 
died  in  1340,  where  they  are  introduced  and  employed.     Of 
this  work  Luther  often  availed  himself.     A   late  German 
translation,  according  to  the  expositions  of  the  Rabbins,  has 
been  lately  presented  to  the  pubhc,  by  a  learned  Jew,  David  . 
Ottenzoser.^* 


teries.  V.  18,  is  pleasantly  enough  interpreted  of  the  bell  ropes.  From 
his  modification  of  some  places,  for  example,  in  chap.  n.  1,  it  may  also 
be  really  conjectured,  that  the  author  was  not  serious,  and  that  he  had 
no  other  design,  than  to  subject  to  the  severest  ridicule  the  explanations 
which  were  then  current  in  the  church. 

1 9  See  Uri  catalog.  Bibl.  Bodlei.  p.  16.  Compare  also  Pococke  in 
many  of  his  writings :  viz.  Commentary  on  Joel,  Hosea  and  Micha; 
miscellaneous  notes  ad  Portam  Mosis; — ScH^URRER,  Dissert  Phil. 
Crit.  pp  45,324,  also,  Specim.  Tanchum.  Hieros.  Tubingae,  1791,  4to. 
— Pococke  intended  to  give  an  edition  of  the  whole  commentary. 

8  0  Sal  bbn  Melech  Michlal  Jophi,  Const.  1685,  fol. 

y'aS  T"Opn  HJB^D  Knrsn  03*13,  t^^t  is:  the  book  of  Isaiah,  translated 
into  German  and  explained,  by  David  Ottenzoser.  Printed  at  Ftlrth, 
in  the  year  .>f  the,  world  5567,  (A.  D.  1807,)  8vo.  The  commentaries  of 
.Tarchi  and  Kimchi  accompany  it. 


V^       or  THE  ^ 

OF  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAHi  VJ  N  I   V   E  £#Mr  ^    ' 

Modern  Translators  and  Expositors,* 

Among  the  commentators  who  belong  to  the  period  of  the  re- 
formation, we  wilhngly  assign  the  first  place  of  all  to  Luthbr.* 
His  translation  of  Isaiah  first  appeared  alone  in  1528,  then  in 
1532  along  with  the  other  prophets,  and  in  1534  in  the  first 
edition  of  his  complete  bible.'^  He  did  not  himself  pub- 
lish a  commentary  on  it,  but  some  sheets  of  college  notes 
taken  during  his  lectures  were  prepared  for  the  press  in  1534, 
by  one  of  his  hearers.'^    The  notes  are  brief,  chiefly  of  a 


*  Those  translators  and  expositors,  with  whom  Isaiah  forms  only  a 
part  of  a  work  on  the  whole  bible,  shall  be  designated  by  an  asterisk. 

«2  Der  Prophet  lesaia,  Deudsch.  Wittemberg,  b.  Hans  LufFt.  1528.  4. 
In  the  preface  he  speaks  as  follows :  "  We  have  indeed  taken  all  possi- 
ble pains  in  order  that  Isaiah  should  speak  good  plain  German,  althotigh 
it  is  with  difficulty  that  he  can  be  made  to  do  so,  and  has  strongly  re- 
sisted our  efforts,  for  in  the  Hebrew  he  was  very  eloquent,  so  that  it  is 
with  great  labour  that  the  unbending  language  of  the  Germans  can  be 
made  to  accommodate  itself  to  his  style. "t  The  text  is  accompanied 
by  some  short  notes  in  the  margin. — The  complete  edition  bears  this 
title:  Die  Propheten  alle  deudsch  D.  Mart.  Luth.  m.  d.  xxxii  Witten- 
berg, durch  Hans.  Luft.  fol.  Respecting  the  changes  it  has  undergone, 
see  Palm's  Geschichte  der  Luth.  BibelUbers.  S.  366.  Considerable  altera- 
tions were  introduced  in  the  complete  edition.  Thus  in  v.  1 :  ich  wilt 
meinen  Vettern,  for  meinen  Lieben;  in  xl.  31 :  wcrden  mit  Krafftveren- 
dert,  for  kriegen  neue  Krafft. 

»  3  It  is  to  be  found  in  German  in  Th.  6,  S.  1,  ff.  of  the  Halle  edition. 
On  the  arrangement  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  he  says,  S.  9:  "But  he 


t  t  As  this  passage  is,  of  course,  in  old  German,  I  subjoin  the  original, 
that  the  reader  who  understands  the  language  may  form  his  own  judg- 
ment. "  Wir  zwar  haben  miiglichen  vleys  gethan,  das  lesaias  gut  klar 
deudsch  redet,  wiewol  er  sich  schwer  dazu  gemacht,  und  fast  gewee- 
ret  hat,  denn  «rist  ym  Ebreeischen  fast  w^ol  beredt  gewesst,  dasylira 
^ie  ungelenke  Deudsche  zunge  saur  ankomraen  ist,"     Tr.  ] 

59 


466  ON  THE  INTERPRETATION 

practical  kind,  and  he  abounds  with  digressions  on  his  ikvour- 
ite  subjects ;  some  chapters,  however,  he  treats  more  parti- 
cularly. The  allegorical  interpretation  he  decidedly  rejects^ 
and  only  gives  one  specimen  of  it  in  Chap.  vi.-^More  exten- 
sive and  more  learned,  but  at  the  same  time  rath*  doctrinal 
than  historical  and  philological,  are  the  commentaries  of  two 
other  fathers  of  Protestantism,  Zwingle^''  and  Calvin.^^  Yet 


is  not  attentive  to  order,  so  as  to  give  to  each  particular  portion  its  pro- 
per place  and  with  its  own  chapters  and  pages;  one  is  so  intermingled 
with  another,  that  much  of  the  first  portion  is  introduced  in  connexion 
with  the  second  and  third,  and  the  third  is  treated  of  somewhat  before 
the  second.  But  whether  this  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  person  who  col- 
lected and  wrote  out  the  prophecy,  (as  appears  to  be  the  case  with  the 
Psalter,)  or  whether  the  author  himself  has  so  framed  it  as  to  make  it  ap- 
pear that  time  and  causes  and  persons  have  occurred  in  the  order  spoken 
of,  which  time  and  causes  may  not  be  cotemporaneous  or  in  proper 
order,  this,  I  must  acknowledge,  I  do  not  know.''  *  Also,  S.  12 ;  re- 
specting the  means  of  understanding  the  author :  "  Whoever  attempts  to 
explain  this  prophet,  must  be  conveisantin  two  things,  fnthe  first  place, 
he  must  possess  a  thorough  and  fundamental  knowledge  of  the  Gram- 
mar, which  I  candidly  confess  I  have  not  yet  acquired,  and  wherein 
many  distinguished  teachers  in  the  church,  as  Augustin  and  others,  have 
been  deficient.  The  second  particular  is  an  acqunintance  with  sacred 
history,  which  is  still  more  necessary;  and  therefore,  if  only  one  of 
these  two  acquisitions  can  be  made,  I  would  prefer  the  latter."  This 
observation  he  illustrates  by  the  example  of  Augustin,  who,  by  means 
of  his  acquaintance  with  history,  has  succeeded  better  than  Jerome, 
Avho,  with  his  knowledge  of  the  language,,  treats  the  history  somewhat 
negligently. 

S4  ZwiNGLiiContemplationesIsaiaj  prophetae,  Turic.  1529,  fol.  Also, 
Opera,  Turic.  1544—45.  T.  ni. 

3  5   Calvi:!^!  Commentarii  in  lesaiam  prophetara.     Primum  coUecti 


*  "  Aljcr  die  Ordnung  halt  er  nicht,  dass  er  ein  jegliches  du  seinen  Ort 
undraiteigenen  Kapiteln  undeBliittern  fassete,soridern  istfast  gemenget 
durch  einander,  dass  er  viel  des  ersten  Stuckes  under  das  and  ere  und 
dritte  mit  einftihrl,  und  wol  das  dritte  Stiick  etwa  ehe  handelt,  als  das 
andere.  Ob  aber  das  geschehen  sey  durch  den,  so  solche  seine  Weissa- 
gung  zusammengelesen  und  geschrieben  hat,  (als  man  im  Psalter  achtet 
geschehen  zu  seyn,)  oder  ob  er  cs  selbst  so  gestaltet  hat,  darnach  Zeifj 
Ursachen  und  Personen  sich  zugetragen  haben,  von  einem  jegJichen 
Stuck  zu  reden,  vvelehe  Zeit  und  Ursachen  nicht  gleich  seyn  no^h 


Ordnung  haben  m^gen,  das  weiss  icb nicht." 


OF  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAH.  467 

With  respect  to  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  not  one  of  these  men 
had  made  such  advances  as  are  requisite  to  communicate  in- 
struction to  posterity.  More  important  were  these  studies  in  the 
view  of  Oecolampadius''*^  and  Brentz  ;* '^'  and  Sebastian" 
MiJivsTER  *  and  Wolfgang  M eusel  (Musculus,)  among  the 
Protestants,  and  V  atablus  *  of  the  Catholics,  availed  them- 
selves of  their  acquaintance  with  the  Rabbins,  in  order  to  cir- 
culate the  interpretations  which  they  contain  among  Chris- 
tians.^'' About  the  same  time,  Castalio  *  ^  at  Basle  gave  to 
the  world  a  translation  composed  in  good  Latin  with  some 
annotations,  and  the  Portuguese  prelate  Forerius  ^"  an  exten- 
sive commentary,  and  for  that  age  valuable  and  learned. 

2.  The  commentary  of  Caspar  Sanctius^*  is  the  only  one 
belonging  to  the  early  part  of  the  16th  century  which  de- 
serves to  be  mentioned.  But  towards  the  middle  of  it  ap- 
peared Hugo  Grotius*  and  Louis  de  Dieu,*  two  equally 
celebrated  expositors,  who  opened  the  road,  each  in  his  own 
way,  to  a  more  learned,  enlarged,  and  liberal  method  of  inter- 
pretation :  the  former  by  an  unprejudiced  treatment  of  the 
Old  Testament,  with  the  same  correct  spirit  and  elegant  feel- 
ing which  are  applied  to  the  other  classic  writings,  from 
which  he  adduces  the  most  appropriate  parallel  places  ;^^)  the 


opera  N.  Gallasii,  deinde  locupletati  cura  ipsias  auctoris.  Ed.  iii. 
Genevae,  1570,  fol.  It  was  reprinted  in  1583,  and  in  the  Amsterdam 
edition  of  iiis  works,  1671,  T.  iv. 

3  a   Hypomneraata  in  Esaiam.     Basil,  1525,  1567,  4to. 

8  7  Jo.  Brentii  Esaias  commentariis  explicatus,  Francof.  1550.  Also 
Opp.  T.  IV.  p.  124,  Tubing.  1675,  fol.     See  a  conjecture  of  his  on  ii.  6. 

8  8  Seb.  MiJNSTER  in  the  Critici  Sacri.  Mosculi  Comment.  locu- 
pletissimi  et  recens  editi  in  Esaim  prophetam.  Basil.  1570,  fol.  The 
notes  of  Vatablus  are  in  Rob.  Stephens'  edition  of  the  Vulgate,  1557, 
and  also  in  the  Critici  Sacri.  The  last  contain  brief  but  very  useful 
glosses,  in  the  form  of  scholia. 

8  8  Biblia,  interprete  Seb.  Castalione,  una  cum  ejusdem  annota- 
tionibus.     Basil,  1531,  fol.     The  notes  are  in  the  Critici  Sacri. 

9  0  Franc.  Forerii,  Lusitani  Olyssiponensis,  Coxnmentarius  in  Es. 
Venet.  1553,  fol.     Reprinted  in  the  Critici  Sacri. 

0  1  Casp.  Sanctu  Commentarius  in  prophetas  majores  et  minores. 
Antwerp.  1621,  fol. 

9  3  HcG.  GROTiiannotationes  in  V.  T.  Paris.  1644.    They  ar^  also  in 


46h  ON  THE  interpretation; 

latter  by  careful  grammatical  and  philological  investigation  oi* 
particular  passages,  accompanied  by  a  learned  and  judicious 
use  of  the  cognate  dialects,  especially  the  Syriac  and  Ethio- 
pic.^^  The  most  important  interpreters,  until  the  middle  of 
the  17th  century,  are  to  be  found  collectively  in  the  Critici 
Sacri,^^  and  are  embodied  in  one  continuous  commentary  in 
the  publication  of  Matthew  Poole.^^  As  far  as  relates  to 
the  extensiveness  of  the  selection  of  notes,  the  latter  work  is 
the  richer  of  the  two. 

§  10. 

It  cannot  be  stated  without  regret,  that  the  course  thus^ 
opened  by  De  Dieu  and  Grotius  was  pursued  in  the  17th  cen- 
tury, by  a  much  smaller  number  of  interpreters  than  could  be 
wished,  and  might  have  been  expected.  Among  the  great 
oriental  scholars,  who,  from  that  period,  adorned  the  reformed 
church,  from  the  time  of  Edward  Pococke  and  Samuel  Bo- 
chart  to  that  of  Albert  Schultens,  no  one  has  chosen  Isaiah 
for  the  especial  subject  of  a  work,  although  excellent  ma- 
terials may  be  found  in  Bochart's  writings  to  illustrate  this 


the  Critici  Sacri ;  and  Calovius,  who,  in  his  Biblia  lUustrata,  took  the 
useless  trouble  to  controvert  at  length  whatever  they  contained  in  oppo- 
sition to  Lutheran  orthodoxy,  has  introduced  Ihem  into  his  work.  A 
new  edition  appeared,  under  the  superintendence  of  Vogei,  and  D5der- 
i.EiN,  in  which  Isaiah  is  to  be  found  in  the  third  volume,  with  some  ad- 
ditional remarks  by  Doderlein,  in  a  separate  auctarium,  1779,  4te. 

0  3  LuD.  DE  Dieu  animadvers.  in  V.  T.  libros  omnes.  Lugd.  Bat- 
1648,  4to.  It  was  afterwards  reprinted,  with  his  observations  on  the 
New  Testament,  under  the  title :  Critica  Sacra,  Amstelod.  1693,  fol. 
The  notes  on  Isaiah  are  in  {)p.  190 — 243, 

9  4  The  Critici  Sacri  (London,  1660,  9  vol. fol)  contain,  in  the  fourth 
volume,  the  notes  on  Isaiah  of  MOnster,  Vatablos,  Castalio,  Clarius, 
FoRERifs,  Drusius,  and  Grotius  :  most  of  whom  have  been  already  no- 
ticed. Clarius  is  not  of  much  importance;  he  generally  contents 
himself  with  transcribing  Miinster.  Drusius  has  given  a  collection  of 
the  fragments  that  remain  of  the  lost  Greek  versions,  which  afterwards 
MOiNTFAU^ON  made  the  groundwork  of  his  own  publication. 

9  5  Matthjei  Poli  Synopsis  Criticorum  alioruraque  sacrae  scriptura 
interpretun>  et  coramentatorum.  Lond.  1669,  4to,  Franco^  1679,  fol. 
Y.  Voll.    T=aiah  is  in  volume  lo. 


OP  THE  PROl'HET  ISAIAH.  469 

prophet,  and  a  series  of  valuable  observations  on  him  has 
been  left  by  Schultens.*  ^    Whatever,  in  addition  to  these, 
was  published  in  complete  works  previously  to  Vitringa's,  is 
not  of  great  consequence.  John  Cocceius*  ^-  is  indeed  often 
happy  in  his  philological  illustrations  of  particular  places,  and 
in  this  respect  he  deserves  praise  ;  but,  in  consequence  of  his 
notorious  attachment  to  a  system  of  interpretation,  which  is 
perpetually  discovering  types  and  prophecies,  and  which  is 
every  where  prominent  in  his  work,  is  at   present  scarcely  to 
be  read  with  pleasure.     Of  Sebastian  Schmidt,^*  an  inter- 
preter by  no  means  to  be  despised,  properly  speaking,  only 
notes  taken  on  the  delivery  of  his  college  lectures  have  been 
printed.     The  critical  notes  of  Louis  Capel  adhere,  for  the 
most  part,  to  the  various  readings  which  he  supposed  to  be 
discoverable  from  the  versions,  as  in  a  late  period  those  of 
HouBiGANT  and  Lowth,^    The  commentary  of  Varenius, 
Professor  at  Rostock,  who  died  in  1684,  which  contains  some 
useful  collections,  is  by  no  means  an  agreeable  work,  in  con- 
sequence of  its  scholastic  method,  and  the  introduction,  with 
tedious  prolixity,  of  matters  unconnected  with  his   subject.*"** 


9  6  Alb.  Schultens.  animadvers.  philol.  et  criticae  ad  varia  loca, 
V.  T.  Amstelod.  1709.  It  was  repriated,  together  with  other  writings, 
under  the  title:  Opera  minora,  I  ugd.  Bat.  et  Leovardiae,  1769,  4to. 
The  observations  on  Isaiah  are  in  pp.  252 — 292.  In  this  work  Schultens 
made  great  use  of  the  Arabic  language  to  illustrate  Hebrew  words  and 
phrases,  although  he  generally  adduces  passages  from  the  grammarians 
and  prose  writers:  indeed,  no  acquaintance  at  all  with  the  Arabic  poets 
is  discoverable  in  his  work.  The  philological  interpretations  which  he 
thus  deduces,  he  places  in  contradistinction  lo  those  which  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  Rabbins  had  preserved.  In  his  later  works  he  speaks  of 
these  observations  as  of  a  youthful  publication,  and  does  himself  retract 
several  of  them:  however,  it  is  often  superior,  for  natural  and  unforced 
interpretations,  to  the  other. 

8  7  Jo.  CoccEii  0pp.  Amstelod.  1701,  fol.  T.  n. 

•  8  See.  Schmidii  Commentarius  super  illustres  prophetias  lesaiae, 
Hamb.  1702,  4to.  It  is  edited  by  Sandhagen,  during  the  life  and  with 
the  permission  of  the  author. 

9  8  LuD.  Cappelli  Commcntarii  et  nota)  criticae  in  V.  T.  Amstelod. 
1689,  fol.  pp.  492—520. 

I  0  0  August.  Varenii  Comment,  in  Esaiam, ed.  Jo.  Fecht.Up3.  1708, 
4to. 


470  ON'    THE    INTERPRETATION 

But  the  publication  of  Vitringa's  commentary  constitutes  an 
epoch  in  the  history  of  the  interpretation  of  this  prophet. 
This  work  alone  is  of  far  more  weight  than  the  earlier  expo- 
sitions and  a  large  proportion  of  the  later.  He  is  certainly 
attached  to  the  Cocceian  method  of  interpretation,  and  the 
frequency  with  which  he  shows  when  and  how  far  the  predic- 
tions of  the  prophet  come  down  into  modern  periods  of  his- 
tory, even  to  the  middle  ages,  the  interpreter  of  the  present 
day  will  find  it  necessary  to  pass  over  ;  yet  this  weakness  of 
his  times*  is  abundantly  redeemed  by  his  superiority  in  other 
respects.  The  sense  of  every  passage  and  of  every  difficult 
word  is  weighed  by  the  assistance  of  a  remarkable  knowledge 
of  scriptural  language  and  of  antiquities  in  general,  by  the  use 
of  all  the  literary  preparation  that  his  age  could  furnish,  to- 
gether with  a  carefulness  and  extent  of  examination  which  is 
often  astonishing.  Greatly  worthy  of  attention  also  are  his 
collections  of  historical  notices  relating  to  foreign  nations, 
against  which  many  of  the  prophecies  are  directed.  On  ac- 
count of  his  views  above  mentioned,  and  because  he  has  made 
but  little  use  of  the  dialects,  and  in  general  only  where  they 
had  been  already  compared  by  others,  his  value  has  often  been 
estimated  too  low  ;  but  not  a  few  biblical  critics^  who  look 
down  upon  him  with  arrogance,  would  have  done  better  to 
avail  themselves  of  his  labors,  which  could  not  but  have  been 
advantageous  to  their  own."' 


•  [  This  is  another  ilhistration  of  the  author's  views  and  feelings  on 
the  subject  of  prophecy,  which  the  reader  is  prepared  to  receive  with 
caution.     Tr.  ] 

1  0  1  Camp.  Vithing^  Commentarius  in  librum  Prophetiarum  lesaiae, 
Lcovardifp  T.  i.  1714  T  ii.  1720.  fol.  Editio  nova,  Basil,  1732,  2  vol. 
fol.  -Another  iibpression  was  given  at  Herborn,  1715,  and  another  at 
Tubingen,  1732.  A  German  translation,  from  which  all  the  useless  mys- 
tical interpretations  are  expunged,  w^as  made  by  Ant.  Friedkich  Bijs- 
CHING,  with  the  title:  Camp.  Vrrni  gje,  Auslegung  der  Weissagungen 
lesaiii.  Th.  i.  with  a  preface  by  Mosheim.  Halle,  1749  ;  Th.  ii.  1751.  4. 
The  author  was  professor  of  Theology  at  Franeker,  and  died  in  1722. 
See  the  funeral  oration  on  him  by  Schultens,  prefixed  to  the  first  volume. 


OF  THE  PROPHET  ISAIAII. 


471 


§  10. 


Since  that  time  but  little,  comparatively  speaking,  has  been 
effected  in  forming  a  collection  of  rich  exegetical  materials. 
It  was  reserved  for  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  of  the  18th 
century  to  interpret  the  prophet,  and  the  Old  Testament  in 
general,  with  feeling  and  taste,  and  in  a  manner  worthy  of  the 
eastern  poet ;  to  treat  the  places  applied  to  the  Messiah,  with 
a  reference  to  genuine  points  of  history,  and  to  show  that  a 
considerable  part  cannot  possibly  look  beyond  the  cotempo- 
raries  of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah.*  For  this  period  also  it  was 
reserved  by  profound  and  learned  philological  investigation  to 
settle  the  meaning  of  words,  especially  in  difficult  places,  by 
the  aid  of  the  dialects,  for  which  Vitringa  had  done  nothing ; 
but  which  were  shown  by  N.  W.  Schroeder,  in  a  splendid 
specimen,  to  contain  treasures  that  might  be  applied  to  the 
explanation  of  the  prophet. 

1.  Cotemporaneous  with  Vitringa  was  J.  H.  Michaelis,* 
who  published  his  valuable  notes  in  the  margin  of  his  Hebrew 
Bible,  printed  at  Halle,  and  which  is  particularly  useful  for  the 
accurate  references  which  it  contains  to  verbal  and  real  pa- 


"  [  The  imperfect  and  erroneous  view  which  the  author  had  formed 
respecting  the  character  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  (see  Einleitung.  $  7,) 
would  lead  us  to  expect  that  he  would  endeavour  to  connect  the  pro- 
phetic representations  of  Isaiah  with  cotemporaneous  persons  and 
events.  It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  the  tendency  of  such  an  eifort  must 
be,  to  sap  the  foundations  of  revealed  reli^io^j  by  destroying  our  faith  in 
prophecy.  But  this  "  word,  spoken  by  holy  men  of  old  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  too  "  sure"  to  be  weakened  by  any  at- 
tempts, and  constitutes  one  of  those  proofs  in  defence  of  revelation, 
which  time,  that  covers  other  subjects  with  obscurity  often  impossible 
to  be  removed,  only  serves  to  render  more  striking  and  conspicuous. 
See  some  good  remarks  on  prophecy  in  Jahn's  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament.  Part  u.  ^  73—88,  pp.394— 331.  Tnj 


47S  ON    THE    INTERPRETATION 

rallelisms."^  The  commentary  of  Le  Clerc*"^  is  not  so  va- 
luable on  the  prophets  as  on  the  historical  books  ;  but  Cal- 
MET***^  contains  a  very  laborious,  although  not  a  critical,  col- 
lection of  historical  materials.  The  critical  notes  and  conjec- 
tures of  HouBiGANT*"^  are  characterized  by  boldness,  injustice 
to  the  received  text  in  favour  of  the  versions,  and  want  of 
grammatical  acquaintance  with  the  language,  w^hich  is  often 
conspicuous.  Robert  Lowth"^  also  is  frequently  not  less 
bold  as  a  conjectural  critic,  although  his  work  on  Isaiah  pos- 
sesses distinguished  merit  for  elegant  and  poetical  discern- 
ment. Himself  a  poet,  endowed  with  true  classical  taste  and 
feehng,  he  considered  our  prophet,  and  generally  the  Old 
Testament  poetry  in  this  view,  which,  since  the  time  of  Gro- 
tius,  had  been  again  altogether  neglected ;  but  afterwards, 
principally  by  means  of  Herder,  became  current  in  Germany. 
The  notes  relate  in  part  to  history  and  antiquities,  in  part  to 
doctrine,  (without  derogating  from  the  claims  of  the  church 
system,)  and  in  part  to  criticism.  In  this  last  department  he 
ventures  to  introduce  a  multitude  of  alterations  in  the  text, 
partly  according  to  various  readings  supposed  to  be  derived 
from  the  old  versions,  and  partly  from  conjectures  of  his 
own,  and  of  his  friends.  Dr.  Jebb  and  Archbishop  Seeker. 
How  unimportant  and  unnecessary  these  emendations  so 
called  were,  is  shown  in  a  very  profound  manner  by  Ko- 


1  ea  Biblia  Hebraica,  ed.  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Halae,  1720.  The  notes 
are  on  the  margin  of  the  text. 

1  0  3  Vetoris  Testamenti  prophetae  ab  Esaia  ad  Malachiam  usque  ex 
translatione  .To.  Clerici,  cum  ejusdem  commentario  philologico  etpara- 
phrasi  in  Esaiam,  Jeremiara,  ejus  Lamentationes  et  Abdiam.  Amstelod. 
1731,  fol. 

1 0  4  Aug.  Caemet  Conlraentaire  literal  sur  tdus  les  livres  de  Pancien 
el  noaveau  Testament',  Paris,  1724—26. 

I  0  5  C.  Fr.  HouBiGANT  Biblia  Hebr.  cum  not.  crit.  et  vers.  Lat.  Fa- 
lis.  1753,  4  vol.  fol.  The  notes  were  reprinted  at  Frankfort  in  1777,  in 
in  2  vols.  4to,  under  the  care  of  C.  F.  Bahrdt.  Those  on  [saiah  are  in 
V  ol.  II.  p.  543,  ss. 

1  0  6  Isaiah-  A  new  translation,  with  a  preliminary  dissertation,  and 
notes  critical,  philological  and  explanatory.  By  Robert  Lowth,  D.  D. 
Lord  Bishop  of  London.    London,  1778,  royal  8vo. 


OF    THE    FROPHET    ISAIAH.  4715 

CHER,***'  a  learned  Swiss,  educated  in  Holland,  who,  treading 
almost  in  the  footsteps  of  Buxtorf,  will  not  deviate  a  hair's 
breadth  from  the  masoretical  text,  while  at  the  same  time  he 
gives  many  useful  illustrations.  Koppe"^  soon  gave  to  the 
world  a  German  translation  of  Lowth^s  work  with  additional 
notes  of  his  own,  critical  and  expository,  far  superior  to  those 
of  his  author.  Here  and  there  they  justify  Lowth's  decisions, 
and  exhibit  some  illustrations  and  criticisms,  which,  although 
more  cautious  than  his,  are  still  however  often  inadmissible. 
What  Koppe  has  afforded  for  the  higher  criticism  of  Isaiah, 
has  been  already  partially  touched  on,  (Einleit.  §  3,  3.).  He 
first  directed  our  attention  to  the  necessity  of  denying,  on 
historical  grounds,  the  genuineness  of  many  pieces  ascribed 
to  this  prophet.  But  as  in  his  division  of  the  whole  work 
as  collected  together  he  goes  too  far,  and  often  proceeds  ar- 
bitrarily, his  criticism  wants  a  firm  support,  and  the  collec- 
tion  appears  to  him  as  a  loose  intermingled  heap  composed 
of  disjointed  fragments  taken  from  the  works  of  various  po- 
ets belonging  to  various  periods.  Although  this  hypothesis 
will  appear  unfounded  in  proportion  as  it  is  examined,  yet 
many  modern  writers  have  adopted  it  without  any  limitation. 
The  Clavis  of  Paulus"^  contains  ideas  for  historical  inter- 
pretation much  better  digested  and  very  appropriate,  but 
still  the  number  of  persons  acquainted  with  the  Shemitie 
languages  who  would  accede  to  its  philological  interpretation 


107  Vindiciae  S.  textus  Hebraei  Esaiae  adversus  D.  Robert!  Lowthi 
criticam,  a  Da  v.  Kochero..  V.  T.  et  ling.  Orient,  profess.  Bernac, 
1786, 8vo. 

1  0  8  D.  Robert  Lowths,  Lordbischofs  zu  London,  Tesaias,  neu  flber- 
setzt,  nebst  einer  Einleitung  und  critischen  philologischen  und  erlaa- 
ternden  Anmerkungen.  A.  d.  Engl,  (by  Richerz).  Mit  Zusatzen  und 
Anmerkungen  von  J.  B.  Koppe,  Prof,  zu  Gottingen,  B.  1—4.  1779 — 
81.  8vo. 

1  0  9  Philologischer  Clavis  (iber  das  Alte  Testament  fflr  Schulea  und 
Acadamien.  lesaias.  'Von  Hein.  Eberh.  Gottl.  Paul^js,  Jena.  179? 
8ro. 


60 


474  ON    THE    INTERPRETATlOiV 

is  yet  fewer.  The  scholia  of  Bauer,""  and  the  work  in  the 
exegetical  manual  of  Augusti  and  Hopfner,"^  are  among 
the  most  useful  of  those  modern  helps  which  have  appeared 
up  to  the  present  time  for  cursory  reading.  The  former  of 
these  works  especially,  although  a  hasty  composition,  like 
most  compositions  of  this  author,  shows  every  where  his  cor- 
rect and  striking  discernment.  But  all  the  above  mentioned 
expository  writings  are  far  exceeded  by  the  commentary  of 
Rosen MULLER,  a  second  edition  of  which,  revised  and  im- 
proved, has  lately  been  published."^  In  the  first  notes  select- 
ed from  the  works  of  Grotius,  Dathe,  and  J.  D.  MichaeHs  are 
principally  conspicuous,  and  with  much  that  is  valuable  in 
the  first  part,  it  wants  completeness  in  the  last,  (Ch.  xl — 
Lxvi.)  In  the  second  edition,  which  may  be  considered  as 
an  entirely  new  work,  the  author  very  frequently  goes  back 
to  Vitringa,  employs  his  materials,  often  introduces  him  in  his 
own  words,  and  has  secured  for  himself  great  merit  in  the 
history  of  interpretation,  by  exhibiting  almost  throughout  a 
very  learned  critique  and  comparison  of  the  ancient  versions, 
abundant  quotations  from  the  Rabbins,  especially  larchi,  (we 
should  greatly  have  preferred  A  ben- Ezra,)  and  from  Jerome, 
particularly  where  he  follows  his  Hebrew  teachers.  Per- 
haps indeed  the  author  has  too  often  followed  such  tradition- 
ary interpretations.  Some  historical  and  critical  views  pre- 
sented in  the  earlier  edition  are  more  satisfactory  to  me,  than 
those  adopted  in  this,  as,  for  example,  in  ch.  vu.  When  the 
author  notices  the  conjectures  of  Lowth  and  Koppe,  he  often 


1 1  0  Jo.  Chu.  F'.  ScHULzii  Scholia  in  V.  T.  continuata  a  G.  L.  Bau- 
15R.  Vol.  viu.  pp.  173  ss.  and  vol.  iy.  1794 — 5. 

I  1 1  Exegetisches  Handbuch  des  A.  T.  ftir  Prediger,  Schullehrer  und 
gebildete  Leser.  FUnftes  und  Sechtes  Sttick,  enthaltend  den  lesaias  (v. 
J.  Chk.  VV.  Augusti).  Leipz.  1799. 

•  1  i  Ern.  Fr.  Car.  RosesmUlleri  Scholia  in  Vetus  Testamenturn. 
T.  III.  lesaiae  vaticinia  coniplectens.  Sect.  1.  Lips.  1791.  Sect.  2,  17&3. 
Sect.  3,  1793. — The  new  edition  bears  the  particular  title :  lesaiae  va- 
ticinia annotatione  perpetua  illustravit  E.  F.  C.  RosEWMiJLLER,  Vol.  u 
Lips.  1811,  <on  the  general  title  page,  1810.)  Vol.  ii.  1818.  Vol.  iii. 
1820. 


or    THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  47^ 

rejects  them  in  the  words  of  Kocher.  The  well  known  prin- 
ciples of  philological  interpretation  which  he  pursues  in  res- 
pect to  the  analogy  of  scriptural  language  with  the  usage  of 
the  cognate  dialects,  which  are  the  only  correct  principles, 
contribute  to  increase  the  superior  excellence  of  his  work  ; 
and  indeed  nothing  else  could  be  expected  from  the  scholar, 
whose  acquaintance  with  the  Shemitic  languages  is  learned 
and  comprehensive. 

2.  The  number  of  translations,  especially  in  German,  which 
the  present  period  produces,  is  very  great,  and  although  they 
are  generally  accompanied  by  some  critical  and  exegetical 
remarks,  it  is  only  in  a  few  that  these  remarks  discover  pro- 
found investigation.  Before  the  appearance  in  German  of 
the  work  of  Lowth,  translations  had  been  made  by  Vogel,"^ 
Struensee,'"  Waltiier,"^  and  J.  D.  Michaells.*"°  The 
latter  follows  a  multitude  of  critical  and  exegetical  conjec- 
tures, which  are  now  for  the  most  part  abandoned,  and  is 
destitute  of  force  and  dignity  of  language  ;  but  his  remarks 
for  the  unlearned  abound  with  observations  very  acceptable 
even  to  the  learned  interpreter.  Moldenhauer""'  translates 
with  little  taste,  and  his  interpretation  contains  httle  that  can 
be  called  his  own. 


11^  Geoug  Joh.  Ludg.  Vogel's,  Beysitzers  der  phil.  Fac.  zu  Halle, 
Umschreibung  der  Weissagungen  des  Propheten  lesaias.  Halle,  1771. 
8vo. 

» 1  4  Neue  Uebersetzung  der  Weissagungen  lesaia,  Joels,  Amos,  Oba- 
dia  und  Micha,  nach  detn  Heb.  Text,  mit  Zuziphung  der  Griechischen 
Version,  von  Chr.  Gottfr.  Sthuensee,  R  cior  der  Domschule  in  Hal- 
berstadt.  Halberst.  1773. — He  attaches  far  too  great  value  to  the  va- 
rious readings  supposed  to  be  suggested  by  the  lxx. 

1 1  fi  Die  Weissagungen  des  Propheten  lesaias,  Obersetzt  von  Joh. 
Heinr.  Waltheh,  Repetenten  zu  Gottingeii.  Mit  einer  Vorrede  von 
ZACHAiiA.     Halle,  1774,  8vo. 

1 1  0  J.  D.  MiCHAEi.is  deutsche  Uebersetzung  des  Alten  Testaments, 
mit  Anmerkungeri  ffir  Ungelehrte.  Der  aclite  Theil  welcher  die  Weissa- 
gungen lesaia  enthalt.  Getting.  1777,  4to.  Respi  cting  the  alterations 
of  the  text,  see  the  same  author's  Orientalische  Bibliothek,  Th.  14. 

1 1 7  Uebersetzung  und  Erlauterung  des  Propheten  lesaia.  Ent- 
worfen  von  D.  Joh.  Hei.v.  Moldenhacer,  Pastor  am  Dom  in  Hamburg, 
auedlinburg,  1780. 


4:'76  UN    THE    INTERPRETATIOK 

Metrical  versions,  but  too  free  and  modernized,  with  over 
bold  critical  improvements,  borrowed  in  part  from  Lowth  and 
Koppe,  have  been  published  by  Cuhe"'^  and  Kragelius.''° 
The  works  of  Seilkr'^'  and  Holster'^'  are  altogether  adapted 
to  practical  purposes.  The  translation  of  Hknsler'-^  is  har- 
monious, without  being  too  free,  and  the  notes  and  views  of 
the  contents  comprise  many  just  and  well-founded  remarks. 
It  is  surprising  that  Hensler,  a  divine  in  other  respects  pretty 
free  from  prejudice,  should  have  shown  but  little  congeniality 
with  the  correct  critical  views  of  this  book,  and  that  he 
should  have  opposed  them  on  such  weak  grounds.  Au- 
«usTi,'23  in  his  translation,  opposes  with  reason  the  practice, 
which,  during  the  latter  part  of  the  preceding  century,  had 
become  prevalent,  of  translating  in  a  modernized  manner  and 
in  Iambic  verses,  and  therefore  chooses  on  the  other  hand 
simple  prose  ;  yet  he  has  probably  attended  too  little  to  the 
harmony,  and  to  a  thorough  investigation  of  difficult  places. 
In  the  latest  work  of  Ek  huorn  on  all  the  prophets,'-'  Isaiah 
is  divided  into  not  less  than  85  of  their  oracles  or  fragments,  and 


'  I  8  tesaias  metri'^ch  ttbersetzt  mit  Anmprkungen,  von  Joh.  Dav. 
CoBE.  Th.  1.  Berlin,  1785.  Th.  2.  1786,  8.  (It  is  incumplete,  extend- 
ing no  further  than  the  39th  chapter.) 

1  I  »  lesaias,  Erstrr  Theil.  Neu  tibersetzt  und  critisch  bearbeitet  von 
Gebh.  Ki  agelius,  Prediger  in  I.ippstadt   Bremen,  1790.   8. 

12  0  lesaias  aus  dem  H^braischen  tibersetzt  und  mit  Anmerkungen 
er  autert  von  D.  Geo  g  Fkied.  ^  eile  .  KHangen,  1783.    8. 

•  2  1  Die  pro|)h'-tische  Schrift  des  lesaias,  ein  Lieblingsbuch  Jesu. 
Ton  R.  Holster,  Hanover,  1819.    8. 

12  2  lesaias,  neu  tibersetzt  mit  Anmerkungen  von  Ch  ist.  Gott. 
UiLF  Hknsle  ,  Pntf.  dcrTheologie  zn  Kiel.  Hamburg  und  Kiel,  1788. 

'2  3  Die  Schriften  dps  Allen  Testamf^nts.  Neu  tibersetzt  von  J.  C. 
W.  AuGisTi  nd  W.  iM,  L.  de  Wette.  Vierter  Bd.  Die  Propheten. 
Heidlebf-rg,  1810.  8.  The  translati<m  of  Isaiah  is  by  August!.  See  the 
exegetische  Handbuch  mentioned  above,  No.  111. 

124  Die  Hebraischen  Propheten,  von  J  G.  Eichhorn.  G  (tingen, 
B.  1,  1816.  B.  2,  3,  1819.  8.  For  the  places  of  Isaiah,  see  the  list  at  the 
end  of  the  third  volume.  The  genuine  pn^phecies  of  Isaiah  had  been 
published  before  by  the  author  in  Jusxi's  Blumen  althebrdisclier  JDicht- 
iunst,  Gicsscn,  1803,  the  text  of  which  is  here  reprinted. 


I 


OF    THB  PaOPHBT    ISAIAH.  477 

these  are  ascribed  to  various  authors  and  times,  and  arranged 
according  to  the  editor's  hypothesis,  for  the  most  part  in  pur- 
suance of  the  hints  of  Koppe.     With  the  text  are  connected 
notices  of  the  contents  and  historical  remarks,  which  present 
the  point  of  view  in  which  the  translator  has  considered  them. 
The  view  given  of  the  prophetic  oracles  in  this  work  is  in 
general  quite  characteristic  of  the  author.     According  to  it 
we  have  here  for  the  most  part  no  predictions  of  the  future, 
but  poetic  descriptions  of  the  present  and  even  of  the  past.'^^ 
In  the  German  translation  of  Dbreser  with  remarks,  the  au- 
thor has  availed  himself  of  the  progress  made  by  the  investiga- 
tions of  Protestant  writers  only  so  far  as  they  supported  the  doc- 
trines of  his  church.'^     Among  the  Latin  versions  of  late  date 
those  of  DoDKRLEiN  '2  and  Da  the  ^^  deserve  a  conspicuous 
rank,  and  are  similar  both  in  respect  to  manner  and  prin- 
dples.     Both  these  translators  are  strictly  careful  to  express 
the  sense  of  the  original  according  to  the  genius  of  the  Latin 
language,  and  at  the  same  time  never  to  paraphrase.     Both  of 
them  also  give  some  exegetical  and  critical  remarks,  which 
contain  much  valuable  matter,  although  they  both  constantly 
alter  the  text  and  often  without  necessity. 

3.  It  is  proper  to  mention  here  those  writers  who  have 
sought  to  acquire  reputation  by  exegetical  and  critical  exami- 
nation of  particular  places,  or  of  certain  portions  of  the  whole. 
To  the -latter  belongs  particularly  the  Hollander  Greve,  who 
had  formed  the  plan  of  a  complete  commentary,  but  has  yet 


13  s   See  fhe  Inirodiiction  to  chaps,  xxviii — xxxiii. 
13  6  Die  lieiligp  Schrift  des  A.  T.  4te.i  Theiles  Ister  Band.  Von 
D.  Th.  Ant.  Dereser      Frankf.  am  Mayn.  1808. 

127  Esaias,  ex  recensione  textus  Hebraei  ad  fidem  codd.  manuscrip- 
torum  et  versionum  anti<^«aium  Latine  vert  it  notasque  varii  argument! 
aiibjecif  Jo,  Christoph.  Doderlejn,  D.  Altorfi,  1775.  Ed.  2  1780. 
Ed.  3.  1789.  8vo. 

1 2  8  Prophetae  raajores  ex  recensione  textus  Hebraei  et  versionum 
antiquarura  Latine  versi,  tiotisque  philologicis  et  criticis  illustrati,  a  Jo. 
Avo,  Dathio,  Tbeol.  D.  et  Prof.  Lips.  1779.  Ed.  2.  1785.  8vo. 


I 


478  OS    THE    INTERPRETATION 


only  published  a  work  on  chaps  xl — lvi.^^^  In  the  introduc- 
tion, he  states  his  objections  to  the  view,  maintained  by  Ger- 
man critics,  that  certain  parts  of  Isaiah  are  not  genuine.  He 
also  proposes  a  metrical  scheme  of  his  own,  which  rejects 
the  present  punctuation  and  rests  upon  a  system  of  the  author's 
invention  having  a  closer  connexion  with  the  Arabic ;  and,  to  ac- 
commodate to  this  system  when  it  will  not  suit  the  Hebrew  text, 
he  introduces  a  multitude  of  arbitrary  alterations.  Among  the 
philological  and  exegetical  observations  on  particular  places,  the 
works  most  distinguished  for  learning  and  happy  conception  of 
the  author's  idea  are  those  of  Hoheisel,^^"  Schelling,^^*  and  Ar- 
?fOLDi  :*^^  those  of  Schleusner^^^  and  Mossler^^"  are  less  so.  The 


12  9  Vaticiniorura  Jesaise  pars  continens  carmina  a  cap.  xl.  usque 
Lvi.  9.  Hebraica  ad  numeros  recensuit,  versionem  et  notas  adjecit  C. 
J.  GuEV  ,Lin^.  Orient  et  Antiq.  Tad.  Prof.  Ordinarius  in  Acad.  Francq. 
Accedit  interpretatio  Belgica,  1810.  in  long  4to.  Conip.  Allgemein. 
Lit.  Zelt.  1816,  Supplementary  pages,  (Er^^anzungs  Blatter,)  no.  1.  As 
early  as  the  year  1793,  the  author  announced  an  extensive  work, 
in  3  or  4  quarto  volumes :  Programraa  editionis  vaticiniorum  Jesaia? 
novae.     Daventriae,  anno  CID'dCCXCV. 

» ^  0  Car.  Lud.  Mohi  isel.  Prof.  Gedanensis,  Observationes  philologi- 
co-exegeticae,  quibus  iion  nulla  S^vtvohtsl  Esnias  loca  ex  indole  linguae 
S.,ex  accentuatjone  Ebraeorumetantiquitatibusillustranturet  exponun- 
iiir.     Gedani,  1729,  8vo. 

1  3  I  Animadversiones  pliilologico-criticae  in  loca  difficiliora  lesaiae, 
q«ibus  praestantissimorura  interpretum  sententias  exponit;  suam  novam- 
que  proponit  Jos.  Frid.  Schelling,  Superintendens  Schorndorf.  in 
iluc.  Wirtemb.  Lips.  1797,  8vo. 

1  33  Alb.  .1  AC.  Arnoldi  Observationes  ad  quaedam  Jesaiaeloca.  This 
is  a  new  year's  P  o^ram  of  the  University  of  Marbura:,  1796.  4to.  Un- 
fortunately, it  only  treats  of  three  places,  i.  8,  28.  n.  6 ,  but  these  are 
•examined  with  that  profound  investigation  and-  learning  for  which  the 
author  is  distinguished. 

J  33  Beitrage  zur  Erlauterung  der  Weissagungen  des  Prophelen  le- 
saias,  von  D.  Joh.  Fki.ed.  Schleusner,  in  the  Analekten  ftt'-  das  Stu- 
dium  derexeget.  undsystemat.  Theologie,  edited  by  Keil  and  Tzsch'R- 
NER.  B.  1.  H.  2.  S.  1,  ff.  (Leipz.  1813.)    They  extend  through  chaps. 

1 XXIX. 

1  3  4  Chr.  GuiL.  Mossler  novae  locorum  nonnuUorum  Ie.«aiae  expli- 
catu  diffioiliorum  interpretationis  periculum.  Viteb.  1808. 4to.  It  com- 
prehends the  first  five  chapters. 


OF   THE    PROPHET    ISAIAH.  47^ 

most  profound  philological  investigation,  applied  principally 
to  Isaiah,  is  undoubtedly  to  be  found  in  Schroder's  mono- 
graphic  on  Is.  ni.  16,  ss. ;  the  next  in  Martini's  work  on 
chap.  LIU',  with  whom  also  St  hnurber*^  and  Aurivillius 
must  be  mentioned,  as  accurate  and  able  interpreters  of  par- 
ticular places.  The  latest  specimen  of  a  translation,  accom- 
panied by  a  historical  exposition  of  a  popular  kind,^^  may  in- 
deed contain  much  that  is  original  both  in  respect  to  language 
and  history,  but  proportionably  less  that  is  well  founded  and 
w^orthy  of  the  present  advanced  state  of  interpretation.""^ 


I  3  5  Besides  the  Programs  to  be  mentioned  on  xv.  we  may  notice  al- 
so the  brief  significations  which  are  contained  in  some  academical  the- 
ses :  Theiium  inauguralium  pars  philologico-critica,  praef.  Schkurrkk, 
1783,  1788.  4to. 

13  6  Reden  und  Lieder  aus  dem  lesaias,  theils  ganz,  theils  nach  ihren 
schwersten  Steilen  tibersetzt  und  erklart,  alle  aber  nach  ihren  geschicht- 
lichen  Beziehungen  dargestellt.  Nebst  einem  Anhange  aus  dem  Buche 
der  Weisheit.  Freyberg,  1815  8. 

I  3  y  A  large  and  very  minute  list  of  old  writings  and  dissertations 
on  particular  places,  for  the  most  part  small  and  of  little  value,  may  be 
found  in  CALHaT'e  Bibl.  Biblioth.  S.  414  if. 


TREATISE 

ON  THE 

USE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE. 


BY 

JOHN   DAVID  MICHAELIS. 


Translated  from  the  German,  by 
JOHN  FREDERICK  SCHROEDER,  A.  M. 

AN  ASSISTANT  MINISTER  OF  TRINITY  CHURCH,  IN  THB 


CITT  or  NEW-YORK. 


61 


PREFACE. 


The  following  pages  are  extracted  from  the  Preface  to  Mi- 
CHAELis'  Syriac  Chrestomathy.  This  Preface  was  first  pub- 
lished with  the  Chrestomathy  in  the  year  1768  ;  but  it  appeared 
at  Gottingen  in  the  year  1786,  corrected,  and  enlarged  by  the  ad- 
dition of  the  author's  valuable  notes. 

It  is  entitled :  "  Johann  David  Michaelis  Abhandlung  von  der 
Syrischen  Sprache,  und  ihrem  Gebrauch  :  nebst  dem  ersten 
Theil  einer  Syrischen  Chrestomathie  ;"  John  David  Michaelis* 
Treatise  on  the  Syriac  Language  and  its  use ;  together  with  the 
first  part  of  a  Syriac  Chrestomathy.  The  first  seven  sections  of 
the  work  are  <ievoted  to  the  following  subjects  : 

§.  1.  View  of  the"  Syriac  Language  in  general ; 

§.  2.  Chaldee  and  Syriac  are  the  same  language  ; 

§.  3.  Syriac  and  Chaldee  differ  chiefly  in  the  alphabet ; 

§.  4.  It  would  be   advisable,  to   commence  the  study  of  the 

Oriental  Languages    with  the  Syriac,   and  to  learn  it 

before  the  Hebrew. 
§.  5.  "The  Syriac  is  the  easiest  among  the  Oriental  Languages, 

and  the  Hebrew  the  most  difficult.     The  causes  of  this. 
§.  6.  The  Arabic  is  more  difficult  than  the  Syriac.    The  causes 

of  this. 
§.  7.  Is  it  easier  to  learn  the  Syriac  or  the  Chaldee  ? 

The  next  seven  sections,  from  the  eighth  to  the  fourteenth  in- 
clusive, are  devoted  to  the  use  of  the  Syriac  Language.  In  the 
§.  15th,  the  author  shows,  that  "  Models  of  Poetry  or  Taste  are 
not  to  be  sought  for  in  Syriac  ;"  in  the  §.  16th  and  §.  17th,  he 
gives  a  "  View  of  the  Chrestomathy,"  and  the  "  Contents  of  the 
first  part"  of  it ;  and  in  the  §.  18th,  he  concludes  with  a  very  fa- 
vourable Account  of  Castell's  Syriac  Lexicon. 

The  accompanying  pages  are  a  translation  of  the  seven  sec- 
tions, which  relate  to  the  Use  of  the  Syriac  Language. 

New.York,  June  29,  1829.  The  Translator, 


§.  I.  The  use  of  the  Syriac  Language  for  the  illustration  of 
the  Hebrew. 

§.  II.  The  use  of  the  Syriac  Language,  particularly  in  regard 
to  Hebrew  Grammar. 

§.  III.  The  use  of  the  Syriac  Language,  in  elucidating  the 
phraseology  of  the  New  Testament. 

§.  IV.  Of  books  written  in  Syriac  :  and  of  the  use  of  the  Sy- 
riac New  Testament. 

§.  V.  Some  account  of  the  Syriac  Version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

§.  VI.  The  use  of  the  Syriac  Version  of  the  Old  Testament. 

§.  VII.  The  use  which  may  be  made  of  other  Syriac  works, 
particularly  those  published  by  the  Assemans. 


THE  USE  OF 


THE 


SYRIAC  liANGUAGE, 


§1. 

The  use  of  the  Syriac  language  for  the  illustration  of  the 
Hebrew. 

The  first  and  most  usual  object  that  is  proposed,  in  learn- 
ing the  Syriac  language,  is  derived  from  its  illustration  of  the 
Hebrew.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  here  to  say  all  that 
might  be  said,  since  I  have  already  stated  the  prominent  to- 
pics, in  the  forty-first  and  forty-second  paragraphs  of  my 
View  of  the  means  which  are  employed  for  acquiring  a  know- 
ledge of  the  Hebrew  Language  ;*  and  I  must  request  that 
these  paragraphs  be  re-perused.  I  deem  it  necessary,  how- 
ever, to  subjoin  to  them  the  following. 

1.  I  have  there  indeed  already  observed,  that  the  Syriac  is 
less  used  than  the  Chaldee  and  the  Arabic,  for  the  illustration 
of  the  Hebrew  ;  and  hence  it  readily  follows,  that  any  one, 


*  [  The  title  of  this  work  is :  "  Beurtheilung  der  Mittel,  welche  man 
anwendet,  die  ausgestorbene  Hebraische  Sprache  zu  verstehen."  It 
was  first  published  in  the  year  1756,  when  the  author  had  resided  at 
Gottingen  ten  years,  devoting  his  chief  attention  to  Hebrew  Philology, 
and  the  works  of  Albert  Schultens.  See  Eichhorn's  Biblioth.  der  Bibl. 
Lit.  B.  III.  pp.  862.  863.     Tr.  ] 


486  THE  USE  or  the  syriac  language,  §.  I. 

^^ho  learns  this  easy  language  in  any  degree  of  perfection, 
can  obtain  from  it  more  that  was  previously  unknown ;  and  in 
the  explanation  of  the  Scriptures,  he  can  so  much  the  more 
frequently  have  the  advantage  of  something  new. 

It  is  only  necessary,  to  take  particular  notice*  of  some  of 
the  reasons,  why  so  little  has  hitherto  been  derived  from  the 
use  of  a  language  as  easy  as  this  is. 

The  following  is  one.  The  Jews,  our  first  teachers  in  He- 
brew, understood  the  Chaldee,  as  it  occurred  in  the  Targum, 
xmd  applied  it  to  the  Hebrew.  Some  of  them,  under  the  do- 
minion  of  the  Saracens,  spoke  the  Arabic  as  their  vernacular 
language  ;  or,  as  learned  men,  they  understood  and  used  it. 
But,  though  they  must  have  understood  Syriac  books,  they 
could  not  read  them,  on  account  of  tlieir  peculiar  written  cha- 
racter ;  and  they  were  not  interested  in  these  books,  because 
they  were  for  the  most  part  the  productions  of  Christians. 
Thus  hey  did  not  use  the  Syriac ;  and  most  philologists 
among  Christians  tread  in  the  footsteps  of  these  their  precur- 
sors. Some  few,  who  rose  above  the  character  of  mere 
imitators  of  the  Jews,  and  among  such  I  would  name  the  ve- 
nerated St;HULTENs  as  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  exam- 
ples, had  unhappily  too  little  knowledge  of  the  Syriac,  and  a 
predilection  for  the  Arabic,  which  this  language  can  readily 
exCite  among  its  votaries,  by  its  beauty,  and  the  charm  of  its 
compositions  :  for,  that  beauty  and  poetry  do  not  enter  into 
the  commendation  of  the  Syriac  language,  I  shall  evince  in  a 
following*  page. 

In  the  second  place,  most  students  acquired  their  know- 
ledge of  Syriac,  as  I  have  already  stated  in  the  work  before 
referred  to,  merely  from  the  New  Testament,  without  ever 
veading  the  Version  of  the  Old.  Now  it  is  scarcely  practi- 
cable, so  to  learn  a  language  from  the  New  Testament  alone, 
that  it  may  serve  as  a  literary  resource,  independent  of  its 


*  [  In  the  author's  work,  from  which  the  present  Treatise  is  extract- 
ed, may  be  found  a  section  (  §.  15.  )  entitled :  Models  of  Poetry  or  Taste 
nre  not  to  be  sought  for  in  Syriac.     Tr.  ] 


THE  USE  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  ^.  I.       48T 

connexion  with  the  New  Testament  ;  for  there  ocrur  too 
few  words,  and  what  is  of  importance  here,  very  few  names 
of  the  works  of  nature  and  art.  The  Old  Testament  is,  in 
this  respect,  of  a  character  entirely  tht'  <  |  posite,  and  to  a  re- 
markable degree  more  rich  in  its  vocabulary. 

In  the  third  place,  there  has  been,  for  fifty  years  past,  a 
want  of  such  books  of  inter  st,  written  in  the  Syriac  lan- 
guage, as  we  may  now  own  and  use.  And  if  any  one  de- 
voted much  attention  to  the  language,  he  was  obliged,  if  he 
had  no  access  to  manuscripts,  to  avail  himself  chiefly  of  the 
Versions  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  Now  it  is  easy  to 
perceive,  that  from  these  alone  the  language  cannot  be  ac- 
quired, in  that  extent  and  copiousness,  which  is  practicable, 
if,  as  is  the  good  fortune  of  our  age,  one  has  ly  ng  before 
him,  and  can  make  use  of  the  Oriental  Library  of  the  truly 
excellent  Joseph  Simonius  Asseman  (so  replete  with  important 
and  various  extracts  from  Syriac  books),  the  admirable  Sy- 
riac Martyrology,  ^nd  the  Syriac  Works  of  Ephrkm  Syrus.* 
Should  even  the  same  word  occur  in  these  books  and  in  the 
Bible,  it  is  not  the  same  to  the  reader ;  for  he  here  meets 
with  it  in  a  varied  connexion,  from  which  he  can  ascertain  its 
meaning,  and  not  unfrequently  with  certain  characteristics, 
whereas,  if  a  Hebrew  word  were  extant  at  the  same  time  in 
Syriac,  and  the  Syrian  had  retained  it  in  his  translation,  I  am 
none  the  wiser  for  reading  it  in  his  version,  than  if  I  had  pre- 


*  [  The  titles  of  these  three  valuable  publications  are  : 

1.  Bibiiotheca  Orientali&  Clementino-Vaticana,recensensMpuuscrip- 
tos,  Codices,  Syriacos,  Arabicos,  Persicos,  Turcicos,  Hebraicos,  Sa- 
raaritanos,  Armenicos,  ^thiopicos,  Graecos,  iEgyptiacos,  Ibericos,  et 
Malibaricos,  ex  priente  conquisitos,  coraparatos,  avectos,  et  Bibliothe- 
cae  Vaticanae  addictos  recensuit,  digressit,  &c.  Auctoritate,  Jussu  et 
MunificentiA  Clem.  XI.  It  was  published  at  Rome,  1719—1728.  in  4 
vols.  fol. 

2.  Acta  Sanctorum  Martyrum  Orientalium  et  Occidentaliura,  &c. 
/2o?ne,  1748.  2  vols.  fol. 

3.  Ephr.  Syr.  Opera,  in  six  vols,  fol.,  published  at  Rome  in  the  years 
1732—1746.    See  Watt's  Bibiiotheca  Britannica.     Tr  ^^ 


i 


488  THE  USE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §,  I. 

viously  read  it  in  Hebrew.     It  stands  in  the  very  same  con- 
nexion, and  thus  is  no  further  illustrated. 

Here  then  the  Syriac  supplies  us  with  records  of  great  ex- 
tent, from  which  we  may  elucidate  the  Hebrew,  and  which 
are  not  in  use,  because  the  public  has  been  in  possession  of 
them  but  a  few  years.  It  is  not  the  fate  of  learning,  that  very 
prompt  use  is  made  of  the  treasures,  which  enrich  her.  A 
book  is  printed,  and  lies  long  upon  the  shelf  as  an  ornament 
not  in  use ;  for  it  does  not  immediately  serve  the  purpose 
of  the  learned  ;  and  too  little  indeed  was  he  favoured  by 
fortune,  that  could  buy  it.  How  commonly  does  this  occur  ! 
It  is  a  chance,  if  within  a  hundred  years  of  the  printing  of  an 
old  outlandish  book,  any  one  can  guess  all,  for  which  it  might 
be  useful,  and  of  which  the  editor  perhaps  never  once 
thought.  In  some  cases  this  always  remains  undiscovered  ; 
and  the  book  is  lavished,  as  those  blossoms,  which  nature  de- 
signs only  to  change  again  to  garden-mould,  after  they  have 
for  a  short  time  exhibited  their  beauties. 

It  is  true,  that  Rome  long  since  had  these  treasures  in  her 
Vatican  Library  :  and  I  may  with  justice  call  this  city  the 
special  seat  of  Syriac  learning.  But  the  best  votaries  of  Sy- 
riac there  do  not  occupy  themselves,  with  a  reference  to  He- 
brew ;  and  they  generally  use  their  Syriac  learning  for  a 
purpose,  different  from  that  of  us  Protestants.  For  as  a 
great  part  of  the  Syrian  church  has  submitted  to  the  See  of 
Rome,  and  efforts  are  made  to  gain  the  other  also,  it  is  ne- 
cessary, with  a  view  to  be  well  versed  in  the  usages,  the  li- 
turgies, the  antiquities,  and  the  history  of  the  Syrian  Church, 
that  an  acquaintance  be  formed  with*  their  own  writings.  At 
Rome,  therefore,  the  Syriac  is  pursued,  almost  after  the  same 
propensity,  which  Virgil  ascribed  to  the  Romans  of  old  : 

Tu  regere  imperio  populos,  Rornane,  memento. 

And  it  is  important,  in  some  measure  to  retrieve  in  the  East, 
what  seems  to  have  been  lost  in  Europe.  In  this  manner  is 
the  Syriac,  as  to  the  actual  knowledge  that  is  obtained  by  its 
study,  an  important  part  of  Roman  learning  ;  and  such  is  the 


tHE  UbE  OF  THE  SYKiAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  1.  4SU 

niaiiiier  of  its  occupying  those  engaged  in  it,  that  they  littlu 
think  of  making  it  ilkistrate  Hebrew  words. 

2,  From  the  Syriac,  we  may  not  only  derive  much  more 
for  the  elucidation  of  the  Hebrew,  but  often  somewhat  more 
certainly,  than  from  the  Jewish  Chaldee  with  which  we  are 
acquainted. 

The  former  of  these  two  propositions  I  have  already  casu- 
ally treated.*  We  have  far  more  books  of  every  kind  in  Sy- 
riac, from  which  we  may  learn  this  language  to  a  much 
greater  extent ;  and  more  words,  phrases,  and  constructions 
are  to  be  met  with,  in  so  varied  a  connexion,  that  it  is  easy  to 
determine  with  certainty  their  true  sense.  This  is  not  the 
case  in  regard  to  the  Chaldee,  where  our  limited  reading  is 
restricted  to  the  versions  of  the  Bible. 

From  this  very  difference  arises  the  second  claim  :  that  the 
elucidations  of  the  Hebrew  from  the  Syriac  are  often  more 
certain,  and  carry  with  them  greater  conviction,  than  those 
derived  from  the  Chaldee.  I  can  at  least  say,  that  as  long  as 
I  have  illustrated  an  obscure  Hebrew  word  merely  by  the 
Chaldee,  and  miss  that  word  or  its  signification  in  Syriac,  I 
am  not  without  sensible  fear,  lest  I  should  go  astray.  We  are 
acquainted  with  the  Chaldee,  T excepting  Daniel  and  Ezra), 
only  from  the  writings  of  such  Jews,  as  undertook  to  translate 
and  explain  the  Hebrew  Scriptures ;  and  they  lived  pretty 
long,  somewhere  between  four  and  ten  centuries,  after  the 
cessation  of  the  Hebrew  language.  They  introduced  into 
their  Chaldee  many  words,  which,  as  learned  men,  they  had 
obtained  from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  ;  just  as  the  Christian 
Church  has  enriched  other  languages  with  Latin  and  Greek 
words.  And  they  gave  them,  in  Chaldee,  that  meaning,  in 
which  the  Rabbins  had  properly  or  improperly  understood 
them  in  the  Bible.  I  am  not  certain  then,  whether  this  or 
that  particular  word  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  which  I  meet  with 
in  Chaldee  books,  was  at  any  time  a  part  of  the  vernacular 
language  of  the  Chaldeans,  or  was  only  introduced  into  it  by 


r  See  vV  4.  of  the  work  fiom  which  this  Treatise  is  extracted.    Tr.  "^ 


490  THE  USE  OF  THt:  SYRIAC  LANCxUAGE,  §,  J. 

the  Rabbins ;  and  whether  it  owes  the  meaning,  which  Jew- 
ish  writers  give  it,  merely  to  their  exposition  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  or  to  the  existing  usage  of  the  Chaldec.  But  1  am 
safe  from  this  twofold  apprehension,  as  soon  as  I  meet  with 
the  word  in  Syriac,  in  that  sense  ;  for  it  was  not  spoken,  as  a 
half-learned  language,  by  Rabbins,  but  as  a  native  tongue,  by 
such  as  were  not  at  all  concerned  with  the  Hebrew  Bible,  or 
at  least  too  seldom,  to  acquaint  themselves  with  its  unknown 
words,  and  to  employ  it  in  the  acceptation,  which  exegesis 
required. 

Whenever  therefore,  I  meet  merely  in  the  Chaldee,  with 
a  word  or  alleged  sense  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  that  is  not 
found  in  the  other  Oriental  Languages,  I  have  misgivings  on 
the  subject.  And  I  am  afraid,  that  it  may  be  a  word,  not 
nurtured  in  its  parent's  arms,  but  in  the  schools  ;  and  that  the 
Rabbi  took  it  from  the  Bible,  well  or  ill  interpreted  by  him, 
and  trans-ferred  it  into  the  Jewish  Chaldee.  1  am  at  least 
very  distrustful,  if  I  do  not  meet  with  the  word  in  the  Syriac. 
But  as  soon  as  this  is  the  case,  I  am  freed  from  my  apprehen- 
sion, and  1  think  I  am  no  longer  about  to  move  in  a  circle,  if 
only  I  illustrate  the  Hebrew  that  is  not  clear  to  me,  by  meaiiiS 
of  the  Chaldee  and  Syriac. 

I  will  endeavour  to  make  this  more  intelligible  by  an  example, 
where  the  mere  Chaldee  is  doubtful  to  my  mind.  The  words  of 

Isaiah,  Chapter  XIV.  ver.  23.  nb*y^rT  J<DKtOD!J  H^'riXDKDI 

••     :      -  J--:    :     -    :       T       •  ••         r    :■ 

are  most  generally  translated  I  will  sweep  it  with  the  besom  of 
destruction*  The  Chaldee,  Syriac  and  Vulgate  here  led  the  way 
of  the  modern  versions  ;  and  I  have  nothing  whatever  to  say, 
in  opposition  to  the  sense,  which  is  afforded  b)^  this  translation. 
It  is  my  wish  only,  that  an  explanation  of  the  Hebrew  words 
J<DNt?  and  NDKtpO,  which  occur  no  where  but  here,  should 
be  obtained  from  the  passage,  independently  of  the  other  Orien- 


■'*  Supplementa  ad  Lexica  Hebraica,  p.  995.  In  lliese  Supplemeiita  may 
be  found  many  other  examples,  where  fve  must  remain  in  doubt,  if  we 
are  acquainted  with  the  signification  of  r  word  merefv  froni  the  ChaK 


THE  USE  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  I.  491 

'^a\  languages,  so  that  the  noun  may  mean  besom,  and  the  verb 
^weep.  The  Chaldee  alone  very  promptly  offers  this  to  me  :  for 
Ihere  tO^?'tp  signifies  to  sweep,  and  KD^tO^D  besom,  both 
from  D'p  (Urt,  and  tO^tQ  to  cleanse  from  dirt.*  Can  I 
with  safety  rely  on  this  ?  May  it  not  be  the  case,  that  this 
Chaldee  word  is  merely  Rabbinic,  and  originated  from  the 
fact,  that  certain  Rabbins  interpreted  the  unknown  Hebrew 
noun  and  verb,  by  besom  and  sweep  ?  If  it  be  so,  I  should 
^rgue  in  a  circle,  in  case  I  proved  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew 
word  from  the  Chaldee  :  for  in  the  Chaldee,  the  Rabbins  mere- 
ly so  used  it,  because  they  believed,  that  it  was  to  be  so  un- 
derstood in  the  Hebrew ! 

I  am  free  from  this  uncertainty,  as  soon  as  I  find  the  same 
words  in  Syriac  with  the  same  meaning.  But  should  that  not 
be  the  case,  my  distrust  in  regard  to  the  mere  Chaldee  is  in- 
creased :  and  although  I  do  not  contradict  it,  yet  I  follow  that 
sound  logic,  which  it  is  so  .difficult  to  find,  among  most  of 
those  who  interpret  the  Hebrew  Scriptures. 

Shall  I  mention  one  other  example,  where  I  decide,  with 
more  confidence,  against  the  mere  Chaldee  ?  Cocceius,  a 
man  truly  great  in  philology,  who  has  furnished  us  with  by 
far  -the  best  Hebrew  Lexicon  hitherto  extant,  (I  make  an  ex- 
ception, however,  in  favour  of  Castell,  for  in  the  Hebrew  his 
is  better  still,  although  it  is  not  used),  would  translate  nT\^ 
0*^5  in  Isaiah  I.  22.  po/?i.5fMW5  circt<mcisw5  C5^  ag^wa.  The 
expression  is  indeed  peculiar.  I  understand  it  to  be  Wint 
adulterated  t  with  zuater  ;  but  to  circumcise  wine  with  water 
sounds  to  me,  almost  the  same,  as  if  I  heard  of  Jewish  infant- 
Ijaptism.  Cocceius,  however,  took  this  sense  of  the  word 
from  the  Chaldee,  where  certainly  ?71J2  is  the  same  as  ^?1D 
to  circumcise.     But  as  long  as  I  discover  this  word,  neither  in 


*  [  See  Buxtorf's  Lexicon  Chald.,  Talmud.,  Rabbin.,  Col.  847,  on  the 
Chaldee  words  cited;  and  Gesenius'  Hebr.  HandwOrterbuch,  on  the 
word  j<C3XD  and  his  Commentary  on  Isaiah,  xiv.  23.      Tr.  ] 

t  [  The  German  epithet  here  used  by  Michaelis  is  getau/t,  which  sig- 
fies  baptized,  as  well  as  adulterated;  hence  his  play  upon  the  word,  at  the 
cfose  of  the  sentence.      Tr.'] 


492  THE  USE  OF  THE  SVRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  11. 

one  of  the  other  Oriental  Languages,  nor  in  the  Syl'iac,  whicir 
appears  in  other  particulars  to  be  the  same  as  the  Chaldee, 
I  believe  that  ^IID  to  circumcise,  is  no  word  of  the  Chaldees 

themselves,  derived  from  the  parent  stock ;  but  that  it  is 
merely  a  w^ord  of  the  Rabbins  who  spoke  Chaldee.  And  I 
believe,  that  it  was  formed  by  them  from  this  passage  of 
Isaiah,  because  they  did  not  know  what  ^JlD  ineant,  and  re- 
presented it  as  well  as  they  could  by  7^D.  In  short,  it  is  not 
ancient  Chaldee,  but  modern  and  Jewish  ;  and  consequently, 
it  is  of  no  service  for  the  explanation  of  a  passage  of  Isaiah, 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  ^cn  2o  in  Syriac  also  signified  to  cir- 
cumcise, the  views  of  Cocceins  would  have  had  somewhat 
greater  probability. 


§.  II. 

Tlie  use  of  the  Syriac  language,  parhcularly  in  regard  to 
Hebrew  Grammar. 

In  the  application  of  the  Syriac  to  the  Hebrew,  we  mmt 
bear  in  mind,  not  merely  words  and  phrases,  (the  contents  of 
the  Lexicon,)  but  principally  the  Grammar  of  the  language. 
Here  also  the  Hebrew  cannot  well  dispense  with  the  aid  of 
the  Arabic  and  Syriac,  because  the  Hebrew  Bible  is  far  too 
inconsiderable,  to  admit  of  a  complete  grammar  being  formed 
from  it  with  sufficient  accuracy.  For,  to  give  an  illustration 
of  the  case  : — if  a  certain  alleged  grammatical  rule  or  excep- 
tion depended  only  on  a  very  few  examples,  and  as  to  these, 
there  was  a  possibility  of  giving  a  different  analysis  of  the 
word,  or  of  reading  it  in  a  quite  different  manner,  the  inquiry 
would  be  suggested  :  Is  the  alleged  rule,  exception,  or  ano- 
maly, well  founded,  or  only  imagined  ?  And  this  case  is  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  Hebrew  Grammar,  which  appears  to 
some  a  mere  assemblage  of  exceptions.  In  such  a  case,  we 
cannot  well  decide  on  any  thing,  without  adopting  the  aid  of 
the  other  Oriental  Languages,  of  w'hich  we  know  more  than 


THE  USEOF  THK  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  11.  491^ 

ottlie  Hebrew.  Jf  these  recognize  just  such  a  grammatical 
deviation,  it  is  thus  rendered  evident,  that  this  has  been  adopt- 
ed in  the  Hebrew ;  and  it  explains  the  example  stated.  But 
if  such  is  not  the  case,  the  contrary  continues  probable,  until 
it  is  shown,  (at  least  by  a  sufficient  number  of  undeniable  ex- 
amples, that  is  to  say,  such  as  cannot  be  otherwise  explained,) 
that  the  Hebrews  actually  had  such  a  rule,  or  exception,  or 
anomaly. 

Even  the  well-known  rule,  which  is  found  in  all  grammars, 
that  Vav  and  Yod,  if  they  quiesce,  may  be  omitted  ;  or,  that 
they  may  be  inserted  as  matres  hctionis,  (so  that  we  have  the 
liberty  of  writing  the  same  word  both  in  full  and  defectively) 
is  called  in  question  by  critics ;  some  of  whom  are  of  opinion, 
tliat  all  these  differences  of  orthography  are  not  grammatical 
license,  but  errors  of  the  transcriber.  The  Syriac  language 
here  turns  the  balance  in  favour  of  the  grammarians,  and 
against  the  rectifying  critics  -^  for  in  the  records  of  Palmyra  I 
discover,  that  the  same  word  is  written,  sometimes  in  full, 
and  sometimes  defectively. 

The  Hebrew  Grammar  occupies,  to  a  certain  extent,  a  mid- 
dle course  between  the  Arabic  and  Aramaean.  Where  the 
consonants,  the  most  important  part  of  the  language,  are  con- 
cerned, it  appears  in  general  somewhat  more  hke  the  Arabic 
than  like  the  Aramaean  ;  but  this  is  not  the  case  without  de- 
viation, and  we  may  err,  if  we  reject  a  Hebrew  anomaly, 
with  which  the  Arabs  wTre  unacquainted. 

I  will  adduce  an  example,  in  which  this  happened  to  my- 
self. The  J^un  paragogic  of  the  Hebrews  after  the  Future  is 
well  known.  And  it  is  still  more  common  in  Arabic,  where 
there  is  inflected  a.  future  paragogic,  which  is  so  entitled.  But 
the  Hebrew  grammars  generally  state,  that  beside  this,  there 
is  also,  although  not  often,  a  paragogic  Nun  suffixed  to  the 


*  [  Hoffmann  (in  his  Syriac  Grammar,  Lib.  i.  Cap.  i.  §.  12.2.)  give& 
examples  in  proof  of  this.  He  says,  however,  that  the  occurrence  of  the 
malres  lectionis  is  more  frequent  in  modern  than  in  ancient  Syriac ;  and 
he  accounts  for  the  fact,  by  ascribing  it  to  the  inflnenre  of  the  Greek 
language,    TV.  "] 


4&4 


THE  USE  op  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAXiE)  §.  Ih 


Preterit.  Most  examples  of  it  are  erroneous  ;  and  those  ad- 
duced are  only  the  result  of  perplexity,  because  it  was  found 
impracticable,  to  explain  a  certain  obscure  word,  but  by  taking 
away  something  at  the  commencement,  rejecting  it  from  the 
middle,  and  suffixing  it  at  the  end. 

The  word  P-J^ 7.t  I^eut.  viii.  3.  16.,  to  be  met  with  twice  in 
the  same  chapter,  is  at  least  an  appropriate  instance  of  this 
anomaly.  But,  because  I  did  not  meet  with  any  example  of 
a  paragogic  Nun  after  the  Preterit,  in  the  other  Oriental  Lan- 
guages, I  suspected  this  also,  and  1  intended  to  omit  it  in  the 
future  editions  of  my  Hebrew  Grammar.  1  would  have  ven- 
tured to  change  the  vowel-points  of  the  only  example,  and  to 
express  it  in  the  Future  pj^*!^  •    The  Future  was  not  indeed 

quite  appropriate  to  the  context ;  but  in  this  too,  I  adopted  an 
expedient,  to  aid  it,  and  to  translate  :  which  thy  fathers  loould 
not  have  known.  This  opinion  did  not  last  long.  In  Syriac 
writers,  that  had  not  hitherto  been  printed,  I  met  with  what 

grammarians  keep  out  of  view,  that  instead  of  aX^i)  may 

be  inflected  also  ^a!s»^'^^  :  for  instance,  in  Asseman's  On- 

aital  Library ,  T.  i.  p.  235.  .aXiiA  ,  or  to  take  an  example 

N  • 

i\  * 

found  in  this  Chrestomathy,*  p.  78.  *ar::)  \.£i  .  From  this  fact! 

I  concluded  that  the  Chaldees  do  the  same  ;  and  in  the  Tar- 
gum  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Targum  of  Pseudo-Jonathan,  in- 
stead of  ^7^  vv^e  often  find  f  l^r-  Then  I  began  to  think,  that 
the  same  might  once  have  been  the  case  in  Hebrew. 


*  [  The  extract  in  the  Chrestomathy  is  from  the  Chronicle  of  Dio- 
mjsius,  in  Asseman's  Oriental  Library,  T.  i.  p.  411.  In  the  Author's  Sy- 
riac Grammar,  §>.  43.,  there  are  further  examples.    Tr.  ] 

i  [  The  use  of  the  Paragogic  Nun  of  the  Preterit  is  well  known  in  Sy- 
riac; for  in  the  Preterit  of  almost  all  verbs,  some  of  the  persons  appear 
with  it.  See  Hoffmann's  Syr.  Gram,  Lib.  ii.  Cap.  i.  §.  53.  Annot.  3.  In 
Chaldee  also  it  is  to  be  met  with,  as  the  author  states  ;  for  instance,  in 
the  Targum,  it  occurs  three  times  in  a  single  verse.  Ps.  lxxvii.  17.  Eich- 
HORN,  (in  his  Einleitung  iiis  A.  T.  B.  i.  $.  11.  pp.  76.  83.,)  looks  upon 
the  Nun  paragogic  of  the  Hebrew  as  an  archaism;  but  Gbsenius,  (in  his 
LehrgebHude  der  Hebr.  Sprache.  $.  78.  Anmerk.  2.,)  expresses  a  different 
opinion.    Tr. "} 


THE  USE  OF  THE  SVRIAC  LANGUAtiE,  §.11,  4!^^ 

Ill  regard  to  the  vowels  and  diacritical  marks,  Hebrew 
Grammar  derives  more  illustrations  from  the  Syriac,  and  but 
few  from  the  Arabic.  The  probable  cause  of  it  is  this  :  that 
after  the  Babylonian  captivity,  the  Aramaean  was  for  several 
centuries  vernacular  among  the  Jews  who  dwelt  in  Asia, 
and  continued  for  a  long  time  to  be  their  learned  language. 
It  was  no  wonder  then,  if  they  at  this  time  pronounced 
the  Consonants  of  the  unspoken  Hebrew,  according  to 
their  living  language,  that  is,  Aramaean ;  and  were  un- 
acquainted with  the  ancient  pronunciation,  which,  as  I  ap- 
prehend, may  have  approached  more  nearly  to  the  Arabic. 
At  the  present  day,  almost  every  people  in  Europe  pronounce, 
according  to  their  own  native  language,  the  Latin,  which  was 
written  with  consonants  and  vowels :  the  Itahans  pronounce 
in  a  peculiar  manner ;  the  Germans  and  the  French  also ;  and 
the  English  depart  very  widely  from  them  all.  If  it  occurred 
to  the  Jews,  therefore,  a  thousand  years  or  more,  after  the 
total  extinction  of  the  Hebrew  language,  to  add  to  the  He^ 
brew  text  the  present  vowels  and  diacritical  marks  ;  it  can 
scarcely  be  supposed  otherwise,  than  that,  from  their  igno- 
rance of  the  long  lost  ancient  pronunciation,  they  would  have 
adapted  their  native  language  to  the  Chaldee  or  Aramaean. 
And  that  is  not  merely  probable  a  prior e,  but  I  can  prove  it. 
When  I  issue  my  new  Hebrew  Grammar,  on  which  I  am  now 
occupied,  and  which  is  to  be  reprinted  in  a  form,  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  the  editions  of  1745,  1768,  and  1778,  there  shall 
be  given  illustrations  of  the  fact. 

My  late  revered  father,  in  his  Dissertation  entitled  Lumina 
Syriaca  pro  illustrando  Ebraismo  (Halle  1756),^  derived 
many  grammatical  elucidations  from  the  Syriac ;  and  as  I 
have  made  his  Syriac  Grammar  the  ground  of  illustrations  for 
my  Chrestomathy,  I  hope  that  no  one  may  have  this  Syriac 
Grammar,  without  connecting  with  it  the  above-mentioned 
Dissertation. 


*  [  This  Dissertation  may  be  found  in  Pott's  Sijlloge  Comnieritt.  Theffff' 
P.  I.  p.  170.  ss.    Tr.  1 


4^0  THE   USE  OP  THK  SYRlAC  LANGUAtrK,  §.  II J. 


§.  III. 

The  use  of  the  Syriac  language,  in  elucidating  the  phraseology 
of  the  New  Testament, 

The  second  use  of  the  Syriac  regards  the  Greek  of  the  New- 
Testament,  which  is  so  replete  with  Oriental  phraseology. 
Cases  of  this  are  generally  called  Hebraisms  ;  and  I  will  not  dis- 
pute about  this  word,  since  undoubtedly  no  man  understands  so 
much  of  the  ancient  Hebrew  language,  that  he  can  with  con- 
fidence deny  it  any  expression  of  another  Oriental  language. 
It  may  have  been  Hebrew,  without  occurring  in  the  small  col- 
lection of  Hebrew  books  now  extant.  But  Christ,  whose 
words  are  translated  in  the  Gospels,  and  the  other  Jews  of 
his  day  did  not  use,  as  their  vernacular  language,  the  Hebrew, 
but  the  Chaldee  or  Syriac.  And  many  of  the  peculiar  Greek 
phrase.5  of  the  New  Testament  will  be  in  vain  sought  for  in 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures ;  j^et  they  are  to  be  met  with  in 
8yriac. 

I  have  been  marking,  from  time  to  time,  in  my  New  Tes- 
tament, such  Syriac  phrases,  and  shall  perhaps  publish  them, 
when  the  collection  is  more  enlarged.  Should  1  not  have  time 
for  this,  there  will  at  least  be  found  after  my  death,  on  the 
margin  of  my  copy  of  Wetstein's  New  Testament,  what  I 
have  thus  collected  out  of  Oriental  as  well  as  Greek  writers, 
that  has  not  been  taken  notice  of  by  others.  I  made  use  of 
Wetstein's  margin,  because  this  kind  of  collection,  on  ac- 
count of  its  similarity  to  his  notes,  seemed  there  to  be  most 
appropriate.*    I  will,  however,  adduce  one  or  two  examples. 

The  New  Testament  says  sometimes :  to  taste  of  death  ; 


*  Something  of  this  may  be  found  in  myEinleitung  ins  N.  T.,  ilntro- 
duclionto  the  New  Testament,  ]  §.  20. ;  in  the  fourth  edition,  pp.  145 — 149. 
[  The  corresponding  reference,  in  Bishop  Marsh's  Translation,  is  Vo/ 
J.  Pt.  1.  Ch.  IV.  Sect.  y.  pp.  135—139.    Tr.  •] 


THK  USE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  III.  4Wt 

lor  instance,  in  John  vm.  52.  Hebr.  ii.  9.*  Because  this  is 
not  customary  in  the  Greek,  and  is  as  httle  in  accordance 
with  our  living  languages,  as  they  do  not  imitate  the  expi'ession 
of  the  Scriptures,  the  learned  have  found  in  the  taste  of  death, 
according  to  their  pleasure,  emphases,  mysteries,  and  depths. 
At  one  time,  it  describes  the  easy  and  rapid  transition  of 
death ;  and  at  another,  the  bitierntss  of  its  taste  ;  then  again  a 
third  found  in  it  a  deep  theological  sentiment  or  allusion,  be- 
cause our  first  parents  brought  death  upon  themselves  and  all 
of  us,  by  eating  of  a  forbidden  fruit,  that  was  pleasant  to  the 
taste.  In  this  emphasis  and  allusion  to  a  mere  scriptural  nar- 
rative, we  may  truly  be  astonished  to  find,  that  the  phrase  is 
nowhere  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  this  very  deficiency 
might  have  been  enough,  to  prevent  the  interpreter's  explain- 
ing  it  merely  by  the  emphatic  word,  a  Hebraism,  But  we 
may  find  it  in  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  writers ;  the  former  of 
whom  are  more  nearly  allied  to  the  New  Testament,  because 
Jesus  and  his  Apostles  spoke  Aramaean. 

In  AiSEMAw's  Oriental  Library,  T.  i.  p.  51.  the  Edes- 

senes   say:    ^^^^-2   -a^-^  ZUj    f^alo  ^yw  but  one 

death  awaits  us,  which  we  must  taste,'\  that  is,  we  can  die  but 
once.  Here  is  the  same  expression,  except  only,  that  we  see 
whence  it  is  derived.  A  passage  of  Ephrkm  is  more  explicit, 
in  his  Commentaty  on  the  book  of  Genesis,  Tom.  i.  p.  46.  where 
he  makes  Lamech  say ;  Before  that  comes  to  pass^we  shall  die,  and 

escape  the  misery  (  l^i^^  ^     Sflp  Q   Ja:s)  by  the  cup  of  deaths 

which  7oe  must  taste.  They  imagined,  therefore,  that  Death 
held  in  his  hand  an  empoisoned  cup,  which  mortals  were 
compelled  to  drink:    in   the   same   manner,   perhaps,  that 


*  L  The  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which  the  phrasp  ytCofAAt 
QAvdrovfto  tasU  of  deatk,  occurs,  are  the  following :  Matt.  xvi.  28.  Mark 
IX.  I.    Luke  IX.  27.    John  viu.  52.    Hebr.  ii.  9.     In  Hebr.  xi.  5.  also, 
where  the  Greek  is  wh  ihh  bdrarov,  not  ste  death,  the  Syriac  is  1^21  as5 
^^2    p'   "<^^  ^^^^(^  of  death.    Tr  .] 

+  f  FJterallv :  One  d^ath  it  btfvre.  usy  which  tee  shall  tii,^e.    Tr,  \ 

m 


4JJ8  THE  ¥SE  OP  TBE  SYRFAC  LANGOAGE,  §.111; 

iQther  nations  are  accustomed  to  furnish  him  with  a  fatal  shatit, 
the  Jews  with  a  sword,  and  the  common  people  in  Germany 
with  a  scythe.  Thus,  too,  may  we  understand  the  expression 
of  Christ,  when  he  so  repeatedly  calls  the  death  which  awaited 
him,  a  cup  which  he  must  drink. 

There  may  be  a  doubt,  perhaps,  whether  the  Syrian  Chris- 
tians did  not  obtain  these  expressions  from  the  New  Testa- 
menty  somewhat  in  the  same  manner  that  our  German,  and  to 
a  still  greater  degree  the  English  language,  have  acquired 
many  Scriptural  phras(\s,  because  some  people  are  desirous  at 
all  times  to  speak  according  to  the  Scriptures,  or  as  Swift  *  has 
it,  in  his  satire  on  the  Puritans,  according  to  their  father's  will. 

This  cannot,  indeed,  be  confuted  from  the  Syriac  alone^ 
because  our  Syriac  writers  generally  are  Christians  :  though 
the  contrary  may  still  be  probable,  on  this  account,  that  the 
New  Testament  must  have  received  the  expression  from  some 
other  language,  and  Christ  must  have  received  it  from  the 
common  language  of  the  Jews.  The  Arabic  here  furnishes 
Us  with  new  aid,  from  the  circumstance  that  it  exhibits 
to  us,  as  evidences  of  the  expression,  ancient  poets  who 
Avere  not  Christians.  An  Arabian  bard  of  pagan  times, 
whose  poem  I  have  transferred  from  Schultens'  Gram- 
mar into  my  Arabic  Chrestomathy,  [  see  p.  77.  ]  f  says  : 

(jX-4  J^-i  ei--^-^ //"L-^  L«iw-X-5— ;:i 

w6  must  give  the  Hudailites  the  cup  of  death  to  drink  ;  and 
ScHULTENs  cites,  (p.  442.  of  his  Arabic  Grammar,)  a  corres- 
ponding passage.^: 

•  Tale  of  a  Tub,  p.  115.  of  the  first  volume  of  Swift's  Works,  accord- 
ing to  the  Hawkesworth  edition  of  1760. 

t  Professor  Adler,  in  Nonnulla  Malthasi  et  Marci  enunciata,  ex  ndolc 
tinguae  Syriacae  explicata,  p.  13.  states  some  further  examples  of  Arabic 
phrases,  which  give  appellations  to  Death,  from  drinking  or  intoxication^ 
Some  of  these  1  think  inapposite. 

^  [  A  similar  phrase  is  often  found  in  Rabbinical  writers.  Thus:  All 
the  children  of  the  world  NniDl  NDi7C3  V  't-'  taste  the  tasle  of  death. 
Dr.  Gill  (in  his  Comment,  on  Matt,  xvi.  28.,)  quotes,  in  proof  of  this, 
Zohar  on  Gen.,  fol.  2:,  4.  and  37,  1.  and  on  Exod.,  fol.  19,  2.  and  on 
Numb.,  fol.  60,  4.  and  61,  2.  4  \  and  Midrash  Kohelelh,  fol.  83,  2.  He 
refers  also  to  Berestiit  Kabba,  Sect,  9,  fol.  7-3.  4.,  and  Bpxtorf  (in  \rh 


THE  USE  OF  TH£  SYRIAC  LANGUAC^S,  §.  HI.  4H!^ 

"St.  PauPs  expression,  ii.  Cor.  xii.  7.,  the  angel  or  messenger 
of  Satan,  to  buffet  me,  the  best  interpreters  understand,  as  re- 
ferring to  a  bodily  disease.  It  is  not  my  purpose  at  this  time, 
to  explain  it  from  the  opinion  of  the  Jews,  who  ascribed  every 
disease  to  some  evil  spirit,  and  regarded  all  these  spirits,  as 
subjects  and  messengers,  or  angels,  of  the  Angel  of  Death, 
who  in  particular  is  called  Satan.  It  is  «ow  my  intention 
only,  to  supply  a  very  similar  Syriac  expression,  which  I  have 
met  with  in  Asseman's  Oriental  Library,  T.  i.  p.  215.^ 
where  a  transcriber,  in  the  subscription  of  a  book,  says 
that  he  wrote  it  at  a  time  when  he  was  sick ;  which  is  in 
Syriac,  when  I  received  buffetings  on  account  of  my  sins  : — ■ 

I .        \..         ^  .  .        • 

The  verb  (fxavSaki^u,  so  common  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  of  which  I  made  mention  some  time  since,  'm  the  Pro- 
gram *  to  my  Lectures  on  the  Septuagint,  pp.  20.  21.,  may 
be  here  introduced  ;  as  I  then  expressly  deferred  what  may- 
be better  stated  while  I  am  treating  of  the  Syriac,  than  when 
speaking  of  the  Septuagint. 

The  noun  (fxavdakov  is  sufficiently  explained  by  Commenta- 
tors, and  good  Greek  writers  were  not  unacquainted  with  it. 
It  properly  signifies  :  the  loose  and  lightly  set  small  stick  of  a 
trap,  which,  at  the  slightest  touch,  suffers  the  weight  resting 


Lexicon  Chal.  Talrn.  Rabb.)  gives  the  words  of  the  citation.  Dr. 
Paulds  (in  his  Commentar  fiber  das  N.  T.,  Vol.  ii.  Absch.  lxxvii.)  adds- 
the  following  passage  from  JalktU  Chadasch,  fol.  69,  2.:  "There  are 
thirteen  who  taste  not  the  taste  vf  death  :  Enoch,  Eliezer  the  servant  of 
Abraham,  Methuselah,  Hiram  king  of  Tyre,  Ebed-Melech  the  Ethiopian^ 
Pharoah's  daughter,  Serah  the  daughter  of  Asher,  the  three  sons  of 
Korah,  Elijah,  Messiah."      Tr.  ] 

*  f  The  title  of  this  work  is :  Joh.  Dav.  Michaf.lis  Programma, 
vjorinne  er  von  seinen  Collegiis  Uber  die  lxx.  DoUmetscher  Nachricht  giebt, 
und  zugleidi  das  aste  von  diesen  Collegiis  Uber  die  Sprilchwdrter  Salomoni^ 
ankiindigt.  Gdtlingen,  1767.  octavo.  Program,  in  which  he  gives  an  ac- 
count of  his  Lectures  on  the  Septuagint,  and  at  the  same  time  submits 
the  first  of  his  Lectures  on  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon.  See  Rosesmullek 
Handb.  fUr  die  Literal,  der  bibl.  Krit.  und  Exeg,  B.  ii,  Abth.  i.  Absch.  £. 
St.  3.  at  the  close.      Tr.  ^ 


506  THE  USE  OF  THE  SYIllAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  111. 

on  it  to  fall ;  and  in  a  general  sense,  the  trap  itself  may  bfe 
called  (Txixv^aXov.  The  verb  (fxav8aki^(^  derived  from  it,  is  not 
deduced  from  classic  authors ;  but  it  must,  according  to  its 
derivation,  be  the  same  as  the  phrase,  to  set  a  trap  for  any 
one,  or  to  catch  him  with  it,  or,  if  the  trap  itself  be  in  the 
Nominative,  fhe  trap  cavght  some  one.  The  pure  Greek  was 
still  less  acquainted  with  this  verb  in  a  moral  acceptation. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  noun  and  verb  are  often  met 
with,  and  perhaps  not  at  all  times  in  the  same  sense.  We 
cannot  properly  call  it  a  Hebraism,  as  we  do  not  in  one  in- 
stance find  the  verb,  in  the  whole  Greek  version  of  the  cano- 
nical books  of  the  Old  Testament.*  The  Book  of  Sirach  is  the 
first  that  has  it,  Ch.  ix.  .5.  xxui.  8.  xxxn.  (or  according  to 
others  xxxv.)  15.  or  as  others  have  it  16.  or  19;  but  still  the 
New  Testament  may  hence  derive  much  for  its  elucidation. 
The  last  passage  of  8irach  requires  more  illustration  that  it 
gives ;  and  in  the  two  preceding,  the  word  is  used  of  a  more 
particular  catching,  and  placing  of  the  snare.  In  the  New 
Testament,  on  the  contrary,  it  most  generally  occurs  in  such 
a  manner,  that  (if  I  may  be  permitted,  on  account  of  the  am- 
biguity, to  retain  the  Greek  word,)  by  scandalizing,  inconsi* 
deration  seems  to  be  alleged,  rather  than  wickedness  and  de- 
sign* it  does  not,  so  to  speak,  set  a  trap,  but  only  permits 
something  to  lie  in  the  way,  over  which  a  person  may  fall. 

It  herq  seems  to  be  the  translation  of  the  Syriac    \\  AiD  Z  j  >* 
i      .     .    .  .    .       :      "  .'       .. 

which  pnmarily,  in  its  proper  signification,  means  to  fall,  but 

then,  to  fall  away  from  a  religion,  be  it  true  or  false ;  to  he 
irritated  dt  any  thins;,  and  on  this  account,  to  break  off  from 
fellowship^ with  him  who  does  it.  I  will  adduce  some  exam- 
ples from  my  Chrestomathy.  At  page  43,  it  is  related,  that 
the  King  of  the  Homerites  desired  and  received  from  Alex- 
andria a  Bishop,  before  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  which  condemned  Eutychus,  was  recognized  at  Alex- 


*  I  have  since,  however,  found  one  example  of  it  in  a  canonical  book. 
Dan.  XI.  41 ;  but  that  I  could  not  have  known  in  the  year  1768,  for  Da- 
niel in  the  Version  of  the  lxx.  was  first  published  at  Rome  in  the  }np«r 

.177^ 


THK  USE  or  tHE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  Hi.  5W1 

Bftdria  ;  but  this  Bishop  soon  died,  and  as  this  Council  in  the 
mean  time  was  there  recognized,  and  Theodosius  was  pro- 
scribed, on  account  of  the,  faith,  and  because  he  would  not 
subscribe  to  it,  the  King  of  the  Homerites  was  displeased 

OOl  4-s(    ^j&jdZJ  ),  and  would  not  receive  any  Bishop 

from  Alexandria.  It  may  be  remarked,  that  the  word  is  here 
used,  not  of  an  apostasy,  but  of  an  affront,  on  account  of  which 
the  Homerites  separated  from  a  Church,  regarded  by  the  wri- 
ter as  heterodox. 

Bishops  were  introduced  among  the  Homerites,  in  violation 
of  the  usages  of  the  Church,  and  without  being  consecrated 
by  Bishops  ;  see  p»  45.  The  author  greatly  disapproves  of 
this  ;  and  he  thus  writes  of  those  who  disapproved  of  it,  as 

well  as  himself:  "  but  many  (  a^  .•-^Zf ),  did  not  regard 

this  as  an  ordination,  and  did  not  recognize  them ;  upon  which, 
there  arose  a  great  schism."  In  this  passage,  it  might  be 
thought,  periiaps,  that  the  Syrians  may  have  derived  from 
the  New  Testament,  their  signification  of  the  word,  because 

it  occurs  in  an  ecclesiastical  sense  :  but  in  p.  97,    ^OwaJlO 

fallen,  has  the  same  sense  as  ansrered,  displeased. 

This  gives,  it  is  true,  to  most  passages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment where  (fxavSaXi^M  <)ccurs,  no  other  sense  than  they  al* 
ready  have  among  commentators  :  but  still  it  illustrates  them, 
and  evinces,  that  this  verb  had  acquired,  in  ancient  Greeks 
and  even  with  the  Septuagint,  a  signification  so  unusual.* 
At  direct  variance  with  it,  is  a  common  pulpit  observation, 
that  [  the  German  word  ]  drgerti  [  to  offend  ]  does  not  mean 
to  irritate  a  person,  but  to  make  him  drger  [  worse  ],  or  to  cor* 
rupt  his  principles.  This  is  a  w^ell  meant  moral  and  etymo* 
logical  reflection  on  the  German  word  :  but  it  is  unwarranted 


*  [  A  very  full  investigation  of  this  subject  may  be  found  in  Johan- 
SIS  VoRSTii  de  ffehraismis  N.  T.  CommeiUarius,  Pars  i.  Cap.  in.  9.  pp.  8T 
—105.  of  the  edit.  Lipsiaei,  1778.     IV.  ] 


J(te  THE  USE  OP  THE  SVRIAC  LAIfGUAGE,  §.  Uh 

in  the  Greek,  which  actually  says  with  a  Syriasm,  to  provoke 
one  to  anger,  to  irritate.  And  I  must  ascribe  it  to  a  happy 
accident,  that  in  the  German  there  is  found  a  word,  which  so 
well  expresses  the  sense  of  the  Syro-Greek,  although  the  Ger- 
man Translator  knew  nothing  of  the  Syriac. 

One  particular  passage  of  the  New  Testament,  however, 
seems  to  be  still  more  indebted  to  this  interpretation  from 
the  Syriac,  and  to  be,  for  the  first  time,  by  means  of  it,  ren- 
dered intelligible  and  consistent.  In  Matt.  xvni.  1 — 10.  the 
subject  is  pride,  and  the  severest  curse  is  denounced  against 
those,  who  offend  one  of  the  least ;  but  of  this  it  is  said  again, 
verse  10.,  take  heed  that  ife  despise  not  one  of  these  little  ones  -: 
just  as  if  to  offend  and  to  despise  were  the  same,  or  that  to 
offend  was  a  consequence  of  pride.  This  removes  a  great 
obscurity  in  the  passage,  as  long  as  to  offend  is  taken,  in  the 
usual  ecclesiastical  sense,  of  setting  a  bad  example.  But  as 
soon  as  we  understand  by  'i-navdoChi^u,  to  provoke  one  in  such  a 
manner,  that  in  anger  he  xbithdraios  himself  from  us ;  yes, 
and  apostatizes  from  Christ  himself  and  supply*  the  narrative 
from  Mark  ix.  33 — 50,  all  is  then  clear.  As  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  disputed  by  the  way,  wh()  among  them  should  be  the 
greatest  in  his  kingdom,  Jesus  places  a  little  child  in  the  midst 
of  them,  takes  it  up  in  his  arms,  and  says,  if  they  do  not  be- 
come as  this  child,  they  cannot  enter  into  his  kingdom  ;  and 
whosoever  shall  receive  one  such  child,  or  the  least  disciple 
of  Christ,  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  for  his  sake,  will  have 
received  Christ  himself  John  ventured  in  reply,  to  make  a 
suggestion  to  this  effect :  his  master  Jesus  spoke  somewhat 
too  indefinitely.  '  Many  strangers  called  upon  his  name. 
He  himself,  and  his  fellow-disciples,  had  in  short  met  with 
one,  who  prayed  over  those  who  were  possessed,  and  wished 
to  cast  out  the  evil  spirit  in  the  name  of  Christ  ;  but  they 


*  I  refer  to  my  latroduction  to  the  New  Testament,  $.  96.  pp.  910— 
915.  In  the  third  edition,  §.  120.  pp.  772—774.  [  In  the  fourth  edition 
§.  121.  pp.  879—881  ;  and  in  Bishop  Marsh's^  translation..  Vol.iu.Pt.  i. 
Ch.  u.  Sect.  ».  pp,  0—9.     Tr.  1 


TUE  USE  OP  TflE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  IV.  503 

forbid  him,  because  he  was  not  in  fellowship  with  them  ;  and 
yet  he  supposed,  that  Jesus  would  not  disapprove  of  their 
conduct/  Upon  this,  Jesus  answered  :  he  did  greatly  disap- 
prove of  it.  At  least,  this  man  could  have  been  no  adversa- 
ry of  his,  but  must  have  been  a  worshipper.  And  whosoever 
held  in  contempt  only  one  of  the  least  of  his  disciples,  and 
injured  him,  and  provoked  him,,  on  that  account ;  he  would 
have  severely  to  answer  for  it.  If  such  an  one,  only  an 
humble  disciple,  as  was  that  individual  of  whom  they  spoke, 
should  by  their  opposition  be  alienated  from  faith  in  him ; 
one  of  the  greatest  sins  would  have  been  committed.  Here, 
to  provoke,  to  alienate  from  Christ,  and  to  despise^  are:  very 
nearly  allied  to  each  other. 


§IV. 

Of  Books  written  in  Syriac  ;  and  of  the  use  of  the  Syriac 
New  Testament. 

The  third  use  of  the  Syriac  language  consists  in  this,  that 
it  puts  us  in  a  situation,  to  read  and  understand  a  number  of 
useful  books,  which  are  written  in  it.*  This  is  generally  the 
object  for  which  we  learn  a  language  ;  but  we  are  apt  to  pass 
by  this  in  regard  to  the  Oriental  Languages,  at  one  time,  be- 
cause we  design  merely  to  use  them  for  their  illustration  of 
the  Hebrew,  and  our  intention  leads  us  no  further  than  this  : 
and  at  another  time,  because  in  these  languages,  (excepting 
a  version  of  the  Scriptures,  or  Liturgies,)  very  little  is  extant 
or  known.  The  latter  is  not  the  case,  in  regard  to  the  Sy- 
riac language.  Independently  of  a  complete  Version  of  the 
whole  Bible,  and  even  of  the  Apocryphal  Books,  we  are  of- 


'*  [  An  Essay  on  the  Literature  of  the  Christian  Syrians,  (  Ueber  die  Lit- 
teratur  der  christlichen  Syrer,)  by  J.  F.  Gaab,  is  inserted  in  Pauios' 
Repeitorium  fQ.r  biblische  widmorgenl&ndischc  Lilteralur,  VoLin.  pp.  358 
s?.  of  the  edit.  Jena,,  1791.     Tr.  ") 


504  THE    USE  or  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  IV, 

fered  a  valuable  library  of  important,  and  for  the  most  part 
unexamined  works,  most  of  them  indeed  as  yet  in  manuscript^ 
but  some  in  print,  and  I  would  add,  (lest  the  latter  should  be 
thought  single  sheets,)  even  folio  volumes. 

Among  these  works,  it  is  true,  the  version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures holds  a  very  dii-tinguished  place,  on  account  of  its  criti- 
cal and  philological  use  ;  and  an  omission  would  be  discover- 
ed here,  if  I  did  not  make  particular  mention  of  it. 

In  regard  to  the  versions  of  the  New  Testament,  I  shall 
readily  be  relieved  from  the  necessity  of  this,  as  I  should  be 
compelled  to  repeat  what  .1  have  treated  at  length  on  this 
point,  in  my  Curat  in  versionem  Syriacam  Acluum  Jpostoli- 
corum,  cum  consectariis  criticis,  de  indole,  cognationibuSy  et 
•iisu  versionis  Syriacae  tabularum  novi  foederis,  (published  in 
the  year  175;>),*  and  also  in  the  second  edition  of  the  Intro- 
duction to  the  New  Testament,  §§.  24 — 31.1" 

But  I  must  say  something,  in  regard  to  the  version  of  the 
Old  Testament,  at  least  as  preliminary,  and  defer  the  proofs 
of  what  1  state.  Those,  who  have  hitherto  attended  my 
usual  College  Lectures,  which  I  read  on  some  one  or  other 
chapter  of  the  Bible,  will  readily  recal  to  mind  the  proofs. 
If  1  have  time,  I  will  on  some  future  occasion  gather  them 
from  these  Lectures,  where  they  lie  scattered,  and  transfer 


*  [  This  valuable  work  is  a  small  quarto  of  two  hundred  pages,  pub- 
lished at  Gbttin^en,  in  the  year  above  mentioned  It  contains  :  $.  x. 
interpretations  of  the  Grtek  text  derived  from  the  Syriac ;  $$.  ii — vi. 
a  critical  examination  of  the  Arabic  Version  uf  th  Epistles,  ai  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  edited  by  Erpenius,  and  a  comparison  of  this  version 
with  the  Syriac  ;  §.  vii.  a  collection  of  readings  in  ihe  Syriac  not  noted 
by  Dr.  Mill  ;  $§.  vni — x.  a  comparison  of  the  Syriac  and  Latin  Ver- 
sions; §.  XI.  a  list  of  Greek  MSS.  allied  to  ^he  Syriac  ;  $.  xii.  a  view  of 
the  peculiar  readings  of  the  Syriac ;  §.  xiii.  remarks  on  Wetstein's  want 
of  due  care  in  examining  Greek  i\tSS.     Tr.  ] 

t  In  the  fourth  edition,  more  shall  be  stated  on  the  value  of  this 
version;  but  [  cannot  designate  the  parasjraphs,  because  so  much  of  the 
work  is  not  yet  printed.  [  The  author  wrote  these  words  in  1786,  and 
in  1788  the /oMr//i  edition  of  his  work  was  published.  The  passage  re- 
ferred to  is  ^§.  53—60.  pp.  361 — 409;  in  Bishop  Marsh's  Trans.  Vol.  ii. 
Pt.  I.  Ch.  vu.  Sect.  11— )x.  pp.  4—51.     Tr.  ] 


%'HE  USE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANttUAGE,  §♦  V.  505 

diem  to  the  critical  Dissertations,  which  I  propose  to 
■\yrite,*  on  the  causes  of  the  various^readings  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible. 


§.  V. 

l^onie  account  of  the  Syriac  Version  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

The  Syriac  Version  of  the  Old  Testament  is  of  great  un- 
■portance,  and  pleases  me  more  than  that  of  the  New.  It  is 
incorrectly  stated  by  some,  that  it  was  made  from  the  Greek  : 
as  fkr  as  I  have  hitherto  examined  it,  sometimes  casually  at 
isolated  passages,  and  sometimes  in  my  critical  lectures  on 
entire  chapters,  I  find  it  throughout,  immediately  translated 
irom  the  Hebrew  text.t  In  the  readings  of  the  Hebrew 
text  which  it  expresses,  and  in  the  interpretation  which  it 
gives  of  Hebrew  words,  it  is  very  often  different  from  the 
S.eptuagint :  and  in  each  chapter  where  I  have  instituted  a 
.epmparison,  1  have  found  several  such  differences.  I  would 
offer  to  give  examples,  from  any  chapter  that  might  be  se- 
lected ;  but  it  is  the  less  necessary,  because  my  reader  may 
find  them,  in  the  printed  critical  Lectures  on  the  16th.,  40th., 
and  UOth.  Psalms. 


*  This  is  now  out  of  the  question;  but  some  of  the  kind  alluded  io 
will  be  found  in  my  Introduction  to  tfie  Old  Testament,  if  I  live  to  finish 
it.  [  Of  this  work,  only  a  small  part  ever  appeared.  It  is  the  first  por- 
tion of  the  first  volume,  published  at  Hamburg  in  the  year  1787,  com- 
prising Introductions  to  the  Book  of  Job  and  the  Books  of  Moses.  It 
contains  352  pages,  small  quarto,  and  is  written  in  German.  The  au- 
thor died  four  years  after  its  publication ;  in  the  year  1791.     Tr.  ] 

t  [  This  is  also  asserted,  in  express  words,  by  Gregory  Barhe- 
BRAEus.  See  AssEMANS  Oriental  Library,  T.  ii.  p.  274,  and  Abulfhara- 
G^os'  History  of  the  dyrmties,  p.  100,  together  with  tlie  internal  evi- 
dences adduced  by  Eichborn,  in  his  Jntroduclion  to  the  0.  T,  Vol.  u, 
5.253.     Tf.] 

64 


"^Q^  .THj:   USE  or  TH|2  SYRIAC  LANGUAttE,  §.  V. 

I  do  not  deny,  that  the  Syriac  Version  not  unfrequently 
agrees  also  with  the  Septuagint ;  but  that  is  not  to  be  wonder- 
ed at,  and  is  no  objection  to  what  I  state.  No  two  transla- 
tors always  read  or  interpreted  differently  from  each  other ; 
and  just  as  well  do  I  discover,  that  the  Syriac  accords,  some- 
times with  the  Chaldee,  and  sometimes  with  Symmachus, 
or  other  Ancient  Versions. 

Nor  will  I  deny,  that  the  Syriac  translator  had  at  hand  the 
Greek  Version  of  the  Scriptures,  and  may  have  taken  much 
from  it ;  and  I  should  wonder  if  he  had  not  done  so,  as  the  Greek 
language  was  so  much  spoken  in  the  cities  of  Syria,  and  in- 
deed yet  further  in  those  of  the  Euphrates,  and  in  Edessa.  I 
do  this,  even  in  the  German  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
in  which  I  am  now  occupied.*  In  the  preparation  for  it,  I 
consult,  not  merely  the  Greek,  but  at  the  same  time  the  other 
Ancient  Versions,  as  often  as  I  find  it  necessary  ;  and  in  the 
execution  of  it,  I  look  into  Luther's  Bible,  to  borrow  from  it  a 
happy  expression,  when  I  am  in  want  of  one  ;  but  still  I  trans- 
late from  the  Hebrew.  Just  in  this  manner,  I  imagine,  the 
Syriac  translator  acted,  in  regard  to  the  Septuagint. 

Some  of  the  more  remarkable  coincidences,  between  the 
Syriac  Bible  and  the  Greek,  did  not  however  proceed  from 
the  original  translator,  but  from  a  supposed  improvement^ 
which  Jacob  of  Edessa  undertook,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
eighth  centuiy,  and  of  which  important  notices  may  be  seen 
in  the  Journal  des  S^avaiis.'t  As  far  as  my  observation  ex- 
tends, the  Syriac  accords  with  the  Greek,  more  frequently  in 
Ezekiel,  than  in  the  other  books  ;  but  I  do  not  know  the  cause 
of  this.  I  have  observed  the  same  also,  in  regard  to  the  Pro- 
verbs of  Solomon,  yet  with  the  particular  and  unexpected 
circumstance,  that  the  Chaldee  Version  follows  the  Septua- 
gint still  more  ;  so  much  so,  that  in  my  notes  of  readings  to- 


*  [  Michaelis  made  this  observation  in  the  year  1768 ;  and  the  next 
year,  a  part  of  his  very  able  German  Transh'iion  of  the  Bible  was  first 
.  published.    The  entire  work,  in  part  improved  and  enlarged  by  the  au> 

t%.  ihor^afterward  appeared,  between  the  yeaj-s  17'73  and  1793.       Tf.  1 

t  Tlie  dmn^dum  ^ditioa,  OcWber  }7Q^,  Vol  i.  pp.  67—99, 


THE  D3E  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  V.  507 

ward  the  middle  of  this  book  I  find,  in  those  readings  of  the 
Hebrew  text  which  they  translate,  that  the  Septuagint  is  more 
frequently  accordant  with  the  Chaldee  and  Syriac,  than  with 
the  Vulgate.* 

It  seems,  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  not  all 
translated  into  Syriac  by  one  hand  ;  for  example,  the  transla- 
tor of  the  books  of  Moses  appears  to  me  a  diiferent  person 
from  him,  who  furnished  the  Syriac  Bible  with  the  books  of 
Chronicles.  This  may  have  a  bearing  on  the  preceding  ob- 
servation. Now  and  then  I  discover  traces  of  the  religion  of 
the  translator,  which  indicate  a  Christian  and  no  Jew.  A 
Jew  by  religion  would  not  have  employed  the  Syriac,  but 
the  Hebrew  letters,  and  would  have  used  the  Chaldee  Tar- 
gums  more  copiously,  than  is  obser\'ed  in  most  books  of  the 
Syriac  Old  Testament.  This  a  Jew  by  birth  would  have 
done,  if  even  he  had  been  converted  to  Christianity.  If  there- 
fore most  books  of  the  Syriac  Bible  thus  evince,  that  the  in- 
terpreter had  no  acquaintance  with  the  Targums,  I  then  think, 
that  the  translator!  never  was  a  Jew  by  birth. 

In  the  Polyglots,  the  Syriac  text  is  not  the  best,  but  often 
very  incorrect.     The  fault  of  this  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the 


•  When  T  wrote  this  I  was  unacquainted  with  a  Treatise  by  Dr. 
Da  THE,  De  raliorif  conscnms  versionis  Chaldaicae  el  Syriacae  proverbio- 
rum  Sitlomonis,  Lipsiae,  1764,  in  which  he  makes  this  observat  on,  and 
states  as  the  cause  of  tfie  fact,  that  the  Chaldee  translation  was  made 
from  the  Syriac,  and  afterward  only  altered  in  some  places  by  the  JewsL 
This  subject  I  must  defer,  and  treat  of  it  in  my  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament. 

+  [  The  religion  and  nation  of  the  Syriac  translator  are  unknown, 
KiRSCH,  in  the  Preface  to  his  edition  of  the  Pentateuch  in  Syriac,  (pp. 
II — vui.  of  the  edit.  Leipzig,  A.  D.  1787),  presents  a  brief  view  of  the 
different  opinions  on  the  subject,  and  adds  also  some  judicious  observa- 
tions. He  argue*,  that  the  author  of  the  Syriac  Version  was  a  Syrian. 
According  to  Richard  Simon  he  was  a  Jew;  that  he  was  a  Jewish  Chris- 
tian is  maintained  by  Dathe  ;  and  in  the-  opinion  of  Bertholdt  and 
our  aqthor,  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  Christian.  Gesekius,  in  the  Intro- 
duction to  his  Commentary  on  Isaiah,  Th.  ii.  $.  12.  3.,  (or  pp.  429.  43Q. 
oSlhis  volume,)  maintains  the  last  opinion.       Tr.  1 


i>08  '^'^^  ^^^  ^^  ^'"^  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  ^>  V. 

editor  solely,  although  it  is  certain,  that  Gabriel  Sionita  vma 
by  no  means  an  Asseman  ;  and  for  the  publication  of  the  Sy- 
riac  Bible  he  brought  neither  the  skill,  nor  even  the  care  requi- 
site, which  might  in  some  measure  have  supplied  the  want  of 
karning.  But  the  fault  is  pai'tly  to  be  ascribed  to  this :  that  in 
the  execution  of  the  work,  there  was  unfortunately  employed 
a  very  faulty  manuscript.  Dolath  and  Rish,  Yud  and  Nun,- 
especially  in  proper  names,  are  often  evidently  altered.  How 
frequently  does  this  deviation  give  a  sense,  not  all  accordant 
with  the  Hebrew  text !  Although  the  faults  are  not  limited 
to  these  few  letters  ;  yet  I  mention  these  only,  because  they 
are  very  frequently  committed.  But  I  have  also  found  at 
times,  in  using  the  Syriac  Version,  that  it  rhust  be  printed  in- 
correctly, and  even  so  much  so,  that  I  can  readily  conjecture 
the  true  reading.*  That  word  conjecture  may  indeed  excite 
some  suspicion,  whether  I  may  have  guessed  rightly :  but  if  I 
add  that  I  have  at  times  confirmed  my  conjecture,  on  com- 
paring Ephrem,  and  have  found  the  reading  which  /conjec- 
tured, the  text  with  him,  or  where  the  text  was  faulty  and- 
printed  according  to  the  Polyglots,  still  illustrated  by  him, 
this  may  in  a  measure  call  forth  a  favourable  prepossession. 
I  do  not  readily  venture  a  critical  conjecture  ;  but  if,  sa  to 

speak,    it  obtrudoe  iteolf  upon  me,  T  adopt  it. 

From  what  has  thus  far  been  said,  it  follows,  that  whoever 
reads  the  Syriac  Version  of  the  Old  Testament,  not  merely 
for  the  acquisition  of  the  language,  but  w  ould  apply  it  to  a 
critical  use,  or  judge  of  its  interpretations  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, he  will  do  well,  at  least  wherever  any  thing  appears  to 
him  obscure  or  doubtful,  to  examine  the  various  readings  of  the 
Syriac  Version,  which  are  to  be  found  in  the  sixth  volume  of 
the  London  Polyglot.      I  have  commonly  found  among  these 


*  in  (lie  Polyglot'  BiUe  which  my  reveVeid  fatter  left  me,  t  somelftoes 
fend,  written  on  the  margin,  his  conjectural  emendations  of  tlie  Syriac 
text;  apd  I  regard  these  conjectures  in  the  main  as  probable,  and  most 
of  them  astf«e. 


f  HE  USE  OF  THE  SYRUC  LANGUAGE,  ^.  V.       509 

what  I  sought  for,  bat  liot  always ;  on  many  occasions  EpHnEitt 
has  had  it,  and  other  conjectures  remain  as  yet  mere  conjec- 
tures, that  is,  without  evidence. 

Of  how  great  importance  Epiirem  Syrus  may  be  to  a 
sehalaFj  who  desires  to  read  and  use  the  Syriac  Version,  WJr^ 
reaider  may  have  already  observed ;  but  in  regard  to  hi^ 
Works,  I  shall  soon  speak  further.  It  is  my  intention  herfe,  ta 
{Joint  out  only  a  few  other  helps,  which  the  scholar,  \^lKy 
wishes,  if  I  may  so  speak,  to  exhaust  the  uses  of  the  Syriac 
Version,  must  employ. 

Of  some  books  of  Scripture  we  hate  Arabic  Versions, 
which  are  made  from  the  Syriac ;  of  this  character  is  the 
Arabic  version  of  the  book  of  Job,  which  is  printed  in  the 
Polyglots,  and  in  great  part  the  so  called  Maronite  Arabic 
Version  of  the  Psalms.*  Whoever  compares  these  with  the 
Syriac,  will  sometimes  be  enabled  to  understand  an  uncommon, 
and  on  that  account  obscure  or  doubtful  Syriac  word,  with 
more  correctness,  or  at  least  with  a  greater  degree  of  certainty. 
This  is  particularly  useful,  in  regard  to  the  names  of  animals  and 
plants  ;  for  these  words  have  heretofore  been  very  little  un- 
derstood, because  we  have  no  works  on  Natural  History,  in 
Syriac  as  we  have  in  Arabic.  Gabriel  Sionita  was  accus- 
tomed to  translate  them,  so  to  speak,  without  the  least  regard 
for  the  public,  as  it  casually  occurred  to  him,  and  as  he  under- 
stood the  Hebrew  word  to  which  the  Syriac  answered,  from 
the  Vulgate,  or  from  a  Hebrew  Lexicon  ;  just  as  if  the  Syriac 


*  [  The  Author  here  inserts  a  long  note,  on  this  and  other  Arabic 
Versions  of  the  Psalms,  which  it  is  thought  proper  to  omit. 

It  may  be  well  to  state,  however,  that  the  Arabic  Version  of  the 
rsalms,  in  the  LoN'DON  Polyglot  is  formed  from  the  Oreek,  and  not 
from  the  Hebrew,  as  alleged  by  Baumgarten  in  the  Hallischerx  Bihlio- 
thek. 

The  Maronite  Arabic  Version  of  the  Psalms,  our  author  asserts  in  the 
omitted  note,  was  formed,  not  from  the  Greek,  but  from  the  Syriac.  See, 
to  the  contrary,  Rosemijller's  Handbuch  filr  die  Literatuf  dcr  bibl. 
Kritik  und  Exegese,  B.  ui.  Abth.  5.  Absch.  3 ;  also  EicHHOfeu's  Einleit. 
ins  A,  T.  B.  ii.  Kap.  m.  «S.  297,  and  his  Reperlorium^  Th.  iv.  Abh".  in, 


510  THE  USE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  VI, 

translator  must  have  understood  the  Hebrew  word,  in  that 
manner  which  prevailed  in  Gabriel's  day.  Castel  ,  whose 
Syriac  Lexicon  I  estec  m  very  highly,  and  regard  as  the  most 
complete  portion  of  his  Heptaglot  Lexicon,  h  ;s  indeed  correct- 
ed many  of  these  faults,  and  translated  in  his  Lexicon  different- 
ly from  what  occurs  in  the  Latin  Version  of  Gabriel  Sionita : 
but  words  from  natural  history  are  still  the  very  poorest  part 
of  his  Dictionary.  Here  then  the  Arabic  Versions  sef  m  to  me 
to  be  of  great  use.  They  were  made  at  a  time,  when  both 
the  Arabic  and  the  Syriac  were  vernacular  and  living  lan- 
guages, in  Syria,  Mesopotamia  and  Assyria  ;*  and  when  we 
might  expect,  that  the  translator  knew,  which  plant  or  animal 
was  called  by  this  or  that  name  in  Syriac,  as  it  was  a  common 
appellation  ;  and  in  Arabic  we  are  still  less  exposed  to  error. 
The  Latin  Version,  which  accompanies  the  Syriac  in  the 
Polyglots  is  not  to  be  trusted  ;  and  it  has  been  made,  neither 
with  the  necessary  skill,  nor  even  with  proper  care. 


§.  VL 

lilt  use  of  the  Syriac  Version  of  the  Otd  Testament. 

.  The  use  which  may  be  made  of  the  Syriac  Version  is 
partly  critical,  in  the  proper  acceptation  of  the  word,  and 
partly  exe^etical. 

The  critical  is  afforded,  if  we  collect  from  this  version  the 
various  readings  of  the  Hebrew  text  which  it  expresses.  It 
furnishes  us  with  a  great  supply  of  these,  hitherto  not  known 


*  It  may  be  objected,  that  in  this  case  no  Arabic  Version  would  be  ne- 
cessary. On  this  account  I  would  state,  that  in  cities  where  the  conquering 
nation,  the  Arabian,  prevailed,  there  the  Syriac  langua;je  gradually  sunk 
more  and  more  into  disuse  ;  and  that  as  the  Christians  who  resided  out 
of  the  above-mentioned  provinces  used  the  Syriac  language  in  divine 
worship,  this  language  became  unknown,  at  an  earlier  period,  out  of 
Syria,  Mesopotamia  and  Assyria.  This  rendered  Arabic  Versions  of  the 
existing  Scriptures  necessary,  before  the  Syriac  vfholly  ceased  fo  be  ft 
liviog^languaj^e. 


THfi  USE  OF  TH£  SYftlAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  VI.  5ll 

und  still  less  examined,  and  many  of  them  important.  Some- 
times it  confirms  the  common  reading  of  the  Masorites,  in 
opposition  to  other  Ancient  Versions,  or  to  the  Samaritan 
text ;  sometimes  it  contributes  by  its  oVn,  to  set  forth  other 
readings  of  the  Masorites.  To  what  deference  it  may  be 
entitled  in  either  case,  I  cannot  now  inquire. 

The  exegetical  uses  I  value  far  more  highly,  in  regard  to 
the  Syriac  Version  of  the  Old  than  of  the  New  Testament: 
and  for  this  reason,  because  in  the  Old  Testament  there  is 
more  obscure,  that  stands  in  need  of  explanation.  This  is  the 
case  particularly,  if  obscure  Hebrew  words  are  translated  by 
the  Syriac  interpreter,  who  might  know  much  more  concern- 
ing them,  than  we  in  Europe,  after  the  lapse  of  so  many  cen- 
turies. I  have  treated  of  this,  in  my  Fiew  of  the  means^  to  ac- 
quire  a  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  language,  §  §.  22.  23.  24.,  to 
which  I  now  refer,  to  save  repetitions.  Here,  and  as  far  as 
it  relates  to  the  signification  of  particular  words,  the  Syriac 
Version  (on  account  of  its  age,  and  because  its  author  spoke, 
as  his  native  language,  one  that  was  allied  to  the  Hebrew,) 
has  in  a  degree,  the  authority  and  credibility  of  a  witness. 
The  case  is  different,  as  soon  as  the  question  is,  whether  this 
or  that  meaning  is  to  be  adopted  in  a  particular  passage  point- 
ed out ;  for  the  question,  in  this  case,  is  merely  logical,  and 
can  depend  neither  on  witnesses  nor  authority.  Yet  still  an 
Ancient  Version  may  possess  another  kind  of  merit  ;  which 
is,  that  it  may  elucidate  an  obscure  passage  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  the  sense  of  which  at  least  modern  commentators  have 
misapprehended,  and  give  an  explanation  that  was  not  thought 
of,  and  which  on  close  investigation  may  prove  true.  It  is 
indeed  merit  enough,  if  this  true  explanation  were  to  be  met 
with  only  in  a  degree,  and  it  gave  us  a  hint,  which  led  us 
further.  I  must  acknowledge,  that  I  have  not  unfrequently 
been  indebted  to  the  Syriac  Version  for  something  of  this 
kind,  and  lest  the  supposition  should  arise,  that  it  always  con- 
sisted in  trifles,  I  will  give  an  example  ;  a^d  doubtful  as  it  is, 
on  account  of  a  double  reading,  no  friend  of  Christianity,  no 
intelligent  skeptic  can  regard  it  among  trifles. 

If  we  understand  Isaiah  xxv,  7.  according  to  the  usual  in- 


i>ii^  THE  OgE  PI-  TBie  ^VflUC  LANGUAGE,  §*  Vi. 

terpretatipn,*  in  which  ^ 72  is  ^o  swallow  up,  £0^7  <Q  co^er, 

and  niDpp  «  'Cfli/,  then  there  arise  phrases,  the  unfitness  of 

which  might  convince  toy  one,  that  Isaiah  ha4  in  view  ^pr 
thing  of  the  kind,  Wha.t  expressions  !  The  Loud  will  swaU 
low  up  the  face  of  the  covering,  that  is  covered  over  all  people, 
and  the  vail  that  is  spread  over  all  nations.  What  is  aface  of 
the  covering  :  a  covered  face  !  some  may  reply.  But  how  then 
qan  it  be  spread  over  the  people  ?  We  cover  a  face,  but  we  do 
not  cover  it  over  other  heads.  What  an  idea,  to  swallow  up  the 
vail j  or  if  you  will,  destroy  the  vail,  or  cast  it  into  the  seal 
liUTHER  had  too  nice  a  sense  of  the  proprieties  of  the  Ger-? 
man  language,  to  have  translated  this  :  he  used  other  words, 
and  thus  softened  the  hardness  of  expression,  which  he  dis- 
covered.! The  moderns  have  brought  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures  more  learning,  but  not  equal  taste.  If  we  com^ 
pare  them  with  him.  he  appears  to  be  an  intelligent  man,  who 
had  good  taste,  but  was  bold  in  translating,  and  attributed  to 
his  author  his  own  sentiments ;  while  all  learned  Commenta- 
tors appear  to  be,  I  dare  not  say  what,  but  only  the  contrary 
of  the  excellencies  just  commended. 

I  shall  not  adduce  all  that  has  been  suggested,  with  a  view 
to  give  a  tolerable  sense  to  the  w^ords  of  Isaiah ;  for  how 
w^ould  it  comport  with  a  preface  to  a  Syriac  Chrestomathy  ? 
The  only  suggestion  that  I  can  make,  before  I  proceed  to  the 
svibject  itself,  is  that  all  difficulties  vanish,  if  instead  of  Dl /|1 
we  read  with  the  Syriac,  Chaldee,  and  Symmachus  t3'7t!^. 
For  as  the  verb  ^^2  signifies   to  smite   (and  particularly  so 


'^  [  In  the  text  of  our  Knglish  Bibles,  it  is  thus :  '•  And  he  will  destroy 
in  this  mountain  the  face  of  the  covering  cast  over  all  people,  and  the 
vail  thai  is  spread  over  all  nations."  In  the  margin,  we  read  swallow  up, 
jjjstead  oi^  '•  destroy,"  and  covered  instead  of  "  cast  over.'      Tr,  ] 

i  [Luther's  words  are  these:  Vrnf  er  wird  auf  diesem  Berge  das 
Hilllen  icegthun,  damp  alle  VGlktr  verhRllet  sind,  und  die  Decke,  damit  alie 
Ileyden  zugedeckl  sind;  i.  e.  And  on  this  mountain  he  will  remove  the 
vail  wherewith  all  people,  are  vailed,  and  the  covering^  wherewitk  alli 
nations  are  covered.       Tr.  ] 


THE  USE  or  THE  SlTKIAC  LANGUAtJE,  §.  VI.  513 

211  Syriac),  and  T|D^  is  used  in  reference  to  anointing  kings, 

we  may  actually  translate  very  handsomely,  and  agreeably 
to  the  context :  The  Lord  will  smite  the  face  of  the  tyrant, 
who  rules  over  all  people,  and  is  anointed  Lord  over  all  na- 
iions :  he  will  smite  death  for  ever.  Here  Death  would  signi- 
iy  the  universal  tyrant  over  all  people  ;  and  as  to  jlDDD, 
which  1  translate  Lord,  or  more  strictly,  unctio  ad  magistra- 
turn,  we  need  only  be  informed,  that  magistrates  in  the  East 
assume  as  a  title  the  ahstracta  generis  fejuinini.*  I  regard 
this  reading  as  any  thing  but  substantiated,  yet  as  I  have  men- 
tioned the  readings  of  the  Syriac  translator,  it  may  serve  for 
an  example.  I  proceed  to  what  I  particularly  propose  to 
say. 

I  will,  then,  not  change  the  Hebrew  text  at  all,  but  take  it 
as  it  stands  in  our  printed  Bibles  ;  and  the  Syriac  Version  of 

the  words  :  CD^l:in"S3"Si;  HD^D^n    riDD^Dm    first  put 

me  in  the  way  for  a  better  explanation.  The  Syriac 
translator  renders  them,  almost  retaining  the  Hebrew  words : 

LiM^Hi  S^  .^  and  the  offering  which  is  slain  for  t  all  peo- 
ple* The  Hebrew  words  may  by  all  means  signify  this  ; 
TjD^  to  pour,  to  shed,  is  the  common  word  among  the  He- 
;brews,  that  is  used  of  drink-offerings,  and  in  Arabic  it  is  ap- 
plied to  offerings  in  general,  without  this  restriction.     For 


*  [  On  the  use  oi  the  feminine  e^stract  in  Syriac,  see  Hoffmanw's  Sy- 
riac Grammar,  Lib.  iii.  Cap.  i.  $.  110.     Tr.  ] 

i  L  The  words  ^sli    \^}^  may  be  traHslated  in  behalf  of,  as  in  Acts 

sxvi.  1.  Agrippa  said  unto  Paul,  Thou  art  permitted  to  speak 

«^  A^^  ^^V  ^1.  in  behalf  of  thyself     Tr.  ] 

65 


614       THE  USE  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  VI- 

cA..M\.^    signifies   he    has    offered,    (J\mm.^^MxJx 

an  offering,   and    c5\-*— wx-S  the  blood    of    the  offering. 

y 
The  very  Syriac  u  iXI^.^  to  offer  seems  to  be  the  same  as 

this,  and  a  mere   transposition  of  letters.     As  soon  as  the 
Syriac  translator  suggested  to  me  this  thought,  it  occurred, 

that  I  might  permit  Dl7  to  remain  in  the  former  part  of  the 
verse,  without  a  single  alteration  of  the  reading,  but  in  the 
sense  which  it  has  in  the  Chaldee,  Syriac  and  Arabic,  io  de- 
vote. Then  Isaiah  is  made  to  speak  of  an  ofiering  for  all 
people,  and  of  one,  who  was  made  a  curse  for  all  nations  ; 
and  this  in  a  very  appropriate  connexion.  He  had  just  been 
speaking,  at  least  as  I  understand  him,  of  the  fall  of  Baby- 
Ion,  and  had  connected  with  it  the  happy  period  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  he  delineates  as  a  feast  unto  Zion,  pre- 
pared for  all  people.  Then  follows,  that  with  the  offering 
for  all  people,  Death  also  shall  be  destroyed  for  ever  ;  that 
is,  his  power  shall  be  taken  from  him,  and  immortality  shall 
be  restored.  Is  not  this  almost  as  express  a  prophecy  of 
Christ,  as  that  in  Chapter  liii.,  and  without  the  least 
violence  to  the  words  ?  To  present  it  at  one  view,  I  will 
translate  the  6th.  to  the  8th.  verse,  according  to  the  interpre- 
tation, which  I  am  accustomed  to  give  in  Lectures,  and  to 
establish  by  proofs,  on  account  of  its  departure  from  that 
which  generally  prevails  : — 

Jehovah  will  prepare  on  this  mountain  a  feast  for  all  people, 
a  feast  of  costly  meats  and  of  wine,  the  fat  of  which  shall  be 
pure  marrow,  and  where  casks  of  wine  shall  be  emptied. 
And  he  will  smite  on  this  mountain  the  visage  of  the  curse,  that 
has  been  cursed  for  all  people,  and  the  offering  that  is  offered 
for  all  nations.  He  will  destroy  death  for  ever,  and  Jehovah 
will  wipe  away  all  tears  from  all  faces.* 


*  [  Our  atithor  adopted  this  version,  almost  word  for  word,  in  his  Ger- 
wiftfe  translation  (jflAe  Bible,  Vol.  via.,  containing  a  Translation  of 


THE  USE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAfc^E,  §•  VI.  515 

In  respect  to  this  value  of  the  S}  riac  Version  of  the  Old 
Testament,  I  have  often  regretted,  that  it  could  not  be  had 
for  the  use  of  students,  in  a  cheap  edition.  The  diminished 
price  of  the  London  Polyglot,  which  has  hitherto  cost  fifty 
or  sixty,  and  now  may  by  chance  be  had  at  public  sales  for 
twenty  Rix  dollars,  will  suit  a  scholar  here  and  there.  Yet,  on 
account  of  its  size,  it  is  not  a  book  to  be  read  in  Universities. 

Two  days  previous  to  my  writing  this,  1  have  receiv- 
ed the  Syriac  Psalter,  which  Professor  Dathe  has  pub- 
lished at  Leipzig.  I  consider  it  very  useful,  and  we  should 
have  advanced  further  in  Oriental  learning,  if,  instead  of  the 
numerous  editions  of  the  Syriac  Kew  Testament,  there  had 
sooner  been  in  existence  a  manual  edition  of  the  much  more 
instructive  Version  of  the  Old  Testament.  Upon  the  first 
inspection  of  this  Psalter,  I  see  one  thing  which  1  could  have 
little  desired  ;  it  is  the  Latin  Version,  which  makes  it  unfit  for 
a  manual  in  colleges,  and  renders  the  student  remiss.  The 
Syriac  language  is  almost  too  easy,  for  any -one  to  require  a 
translation  ;  it  must  therefore  be  for  the  use  of  those,  who 
desire  to  learn  no  Syriac  at  all,  and  yet  wish  to  read  what  is 
contained  in  the  book.  Since  I  have  read  the  preface,  I  am 
feitisfied  with  the  translation  ;  yet  with  the  feelings  of  one 
who  cannot  alter  it. 


Isaiah,  and  a  Commentary  on  the  text.  Rosenmuller  (  in  his  Scholia 
in  V.  T.  Pars  ni.  Vol.  ii.)  translates  :  "  Et  abolebit  in  monte  hoc  spe- 
ciem  operimenti  operientis  omnes  populos,  et  velamen  expansum  super 
omnes  populos  "  Gesenius  ( in  his  Version  of  Isaiah  )  says  :  "  He  des- 
troys on  this  mountain  the  vail  (  Schleyer  ),  which  covers  the  face  of  all 
people,  the  vail  (  Hillle  )  which  vails  all  nations."  AuGtJSxi  and  De 
Wette  (  in  their  Translation  )  render  thus :  "  And  he  removes  from 
this  mountain  every  appearance  of  the  vailing  (  Verhilllung  ),  the  vail- 
ing, which  spreads  itself  over  all  people,  and  the  covering  (  Dec/i^  ), 
■ivherewith  all  nations  are  covered."     Tr.  ] 


,>16-  THE  tSE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE.  »^.  V*/. 


§.  VIL 

The  uae  which  may  he  made  of  other  Si/riac  Works^  particular ii^ 
those  published  by  the  AssEiAANS. 

Beside  the  Version  of  the  ScriptureSy^  of  which  I  have  ne- 
cessarily treated  more  at  length,  the  Syriac  language  offers  us 
a  very  large  store  of  valuable  works,  for  the  most  part  in< 
manuscript,  but  some  in  print. 

Joseph  Simonius  Asseman,  (Europe  has  not  heretofore 
recognized  a  scholar  as  accomplished  in  the  Syriac  lan- 
guage,) gives  in  his  admirable  Oriental  Library  an  account 
of  these,  and  sometimes  extracts  also  from  them.  Some  of 
the  smaller  works  he  has  even  published  entire. 

Another  very  important  contribution  is  made  by  the 
works  of  Ephrem  Syrus,  pubhshed  at  Rome  in  the  year 
1732 — 1746 ;  but  without  some  knowledge  of  Syriac,  all 
hope  must  be  relinquished,  of  becoming  acquainted  even 
with  the  subjects  of  which  Ephrem  treats,  by  the  aid  of  the. 
accompanying  Latin  translation  of  the  work.  This  transla- 
tion, which  did  indeed  proceed  from  an  Asseman,  yet  not 
from  Joseph  Simonius,  but  his  nephew,  Stephen  Evodius 
Asseman,  is  exceedingly  loose.  Sometimes  the  translator  did 
not  understand  the  Syriac  ;  and  in  other  places,  which  are  so 
easy,  that  one  cannot  go  astray,  he  is  so  unfaithful,  as  to  write 
differently  from  what  is  found  in  the  Syriac.  Here  he  omits 
what  Ephrem  says,  and  then  he  adds  what  the  author  never 
thought  of;  and  all  this  so  paraphrastically,  that  we  do  not 
read  Ephrem,  as  much  as  Asseman. 

This  Asseman  published  the  Jlcts  of  the  Oriental  Martyrs,  in 
the  year  1748,  which  I  highly  value,  on  account  of  its  Syriae 
text,  and  1  mention  it  among  the  most  valuable  works.  It  is  not 
my  intention,  however,  to  give  an  account  of  books,  but  of  the 
use  to  which  they  mny  be  applied.  General  and  Ecclesiasti- 
cal History,  the  Geography  of  Asia,  and  certainly  the  Inter- 
pretation of  the  Scriptures,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to 


THfc  USE  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  VU.  517 

observe,  "will  profit  most  largely,  from  the  perusal  of  these 
works. 

1.  The  Profane  History  of  Asia  has  already  acquired  much 
new  light,  by  means  of  what  has  hitherto  been  published  of 
Syrian  affairs.  If  space  admitted,  I  might  establish  this,  by 
the  additions  which  I  have  noted,  in  the  sixteenth  volume  of 
the  Universal  History  (pp.  413 — 431.  of  the  Qerman  transla- 
tion), and  which  I  mention,  because  they  are  derived  merely 
from  my  Syriac  and  Arabic  Chrestomathy.  This  portion  of 
the  Universal  History  is,  however,  one  of  the  good  parts  of 
the  work,  and  is  probably  the  production  of  Sale,  the  best 
contributor  to  the  Ancient  History  ;  a  circumstance  which  I 
must  state,  because  my  additions  certainly  could  not  do  much, 
if  they  should  be  added  to  the  miserable  Continuation  of  the 
Universal  History,  which  is  regarded  in  England  as  a  Book- 
seller's publication,  that  gives  bread  to  hungry  authors.  That 
in  this  compilation,  there  is  something  to  be  improved  or 
added,  need  not  be  wondered  at.  Or  I  need  merely  mention 
the  46th.  page  of  this  Chrestomathy,  where  is  printed  the 
Edessene  Chronicle.  Together  with  the  notice  of  the  Edes- 
sene  kings,  extracted  m  Asseman's  Library,  it  is  the  most  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  materials,  which  Bayer*  used,  in  his 
Historia  Osro'ehna  et  Edessena  ex  nummis  illustrata.  And  in 
regard  to  all  this,  these  few  sheets,  which  I  publish  under  the 
title  Chrestomathy,  are  a  very  small  part  of  the  stores  in  His- 
torical materials,  that  are  to  be  found  merely  in  Asseman's 
Oriental  Library,  from  which  General  History  might  obtain 
very  great  additional  accessions,  although  Asseman  did  not 
write  with  a  view  to  it,  but  to  Ecclesiastical  and  Literary 
History. 

How  important  would  be  the  use  of  Syriac,  if  we  had  more 
entire  works  in  that  language,  especially  if  they  were  histori- 
cal. I  will  only  mention  one,  a  part  of  which  we  possess  in  a 
condensed  form,  in  Arabic  and  Latin.     Grrgory  Abulpha- 


*  [  This  is  Theophilus  Siegfrid  Bayer  or  Baier  ;  and  his  very  valu- 
able work  referred  to,  (see  Watt'?  Biblioth.  Britan.)  was  published  A.  P 
1734,  in  4to.    Tt.  1 


518  THE  USE  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  Vlls 

BAGius  <whose  History  of  the  Dynasties  Edward  Pococke,  in 
the  year  1663,  published  in  Arabic,  with  a  Latin  translation, 
and  which  is  as  yet  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  Asiatic  history,) 
is  the  same  person,  whose  life  is  to  be  found  in  this  Chrestoma- 
thy,  at  page  81  :*  G.iEooRY  Barhkbraeus,  primate  oj  the  JacO' 
bite  Christians  in  Chaldea  and  Assyria,  The  work  was  origi- 
nally written  in  Syriac,  and  was  entitled  iiojrbA^ii> 
£^:Ol  .t  It  will  be  found  in  the  notice  of  his  writings, 
at  page  112.  numb,  ^j^^i^i-  e.  19).     The  Arabic  is  merely 

a  translation,  or  rather,  a  general  abridgment  of  it, 
which  was  made  by  Barhkbhaeus  himself,  a  short  time  before 
his  death,  at  the  request  of  certain  Arabians ;  and  he  devoted 
not  more  than  a  month  to  it,  as  is  related  in  his  Life,  at  p.  105. 
of  this  Chrestomathy.  But  the  Arabic  Version,  if  1  may  so 
call  it,  does  not  by  any  means  exhaust  the  uses  of  the  original 
Syriac  work.  This  consists  of  three  parts,  which  Asseman 
entitles  :  1.  Chronicon  Patrum  et  Regum  ;  2.  Chronicon  Patri- 
archarum  Antiochice  et  Jacobitarum ;  3.  Chronicon  Primatumf 
Patriarcharum,  et  Maphrianornm  Orientis,  The  Arabic 
wholly  omits  the  last  two  parts,  which  indeed  generally  relate 
to  Ecclesiastical  history,  but  often  comprehend  particulars 
connected  with  General  History ;  and  it  contains  the  first 
only,  and  that  never  entire,  for  Asseman  states',  that  the  Sy- 
riac here  comprises  far  more  than  the  Arabic  abridgment. 
Asseman's  words  are :  sed  et  prior  pars,  quam  idem  auctor 
Arabics  postea  publicavit,  et  Pocokius  latine  interpretatus  est, 
MULTo  PLURA  continet,  quam  historia  dynastiarum,  sive  facta 
Arabum  et  Mogulensium  spectes,  sive  res  Christianorum  in 
Thracia,  in  Syria,  in  Mesopotamia  et  in  Perside, 
How  much  would  be  gained  by  Asiatic  history  (which  is  so 


*  [The  extract,  containing  the  life  of  4v.^fis!^a.ol    >  is  from 

As3BMan'9  Oriental  Library^  T.  ii.  pp.  248  fF.    Tr.  ] 
+  [  That  is :  *•  History  of  the  times."    Tr. } 


TUfi  USB  OF  THE  SFAIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  VII.  519 

greatly  interwoven,  in  the  middle  ages,  with  that  of  Europe, 
particularly  of  Byzantium,  of  the  holy  wars,  and  of  the  Rus- 
sian that  is  now  coming  to  light ;)  could  we  but  read  this  au- 
thor in  the  original,  and  without  abridgment !  Among  all  the 
Syrians,  with  whom  we  are  acquainted,  he  is  by  far  the  most 
learned  man.  He  collected  the  materials  for  his  history,  in 
places  where  now  ignorance  prevails,  from  the  treasures  of 
ancient  Libraries,  which  have  probably  been  long  since  de- 
stroyed, and  particularly,  as  he  says  himself,  from  Syrian, 
Arabian,  and  Persian  writings,  belonging  to  the  archives  of 
Maraga,  in  the  province  of  Adorbigan.  And,  moreover,  in 
his  Syriac  Preface,  he  declares  it  to  be  his  chief  object,  to 
preserve  to  posterity  the  remembrance  of  what  occurred  in 
his  time  and  that  immediately  preceding.  This  gives  his  work 
a  still  greater  value,  for  Gregory  Barhebraetjs  lived,  just  at 
one  of  the  most  interesting  points  of  time,  from  A.  D.  1226  to 
1286,  under  the  great  Tatar  conqueror,  Hulak ;  and  as  his 
predecessors  lived  to  see  the  conquest  of  Jenghiskan,  he  lived 
to  see  Hulak,  a  brother  of  Mangu,  restore  at  Bagdad  the  em- 
pire of  the  Califate.  He  was  himself  a  resident  in  those 
countries,  which  were  the  theatre  of  this  great  revolution ; 
and  as  he  was  primate,  he  had  the  honour  of  seeing  and  being 
established  by  this  great  king,  the  very  name  of  whom  (to 
the  humiliation  of  historical  science,  and  of  all  thoughts  of 
posthumous  renown,)  many  an  accomplished  historian  has  not 
once  heard ! 

Of  this  work  (the  manuscript  of  which  is  reposited  in  the 
Vatican  Library,  and  has  been  used  with  so  much  advantage 
by  Asseman  in  his  Oriental  Library,)  I  have  spoken  the  more 
fully,  because  I  desire,  that  the  scholars  of  Germany  may  use 
it,  not  as  a  printed  book,  but  by  means  of  a  copy  in  Libraries, 
I  have  some  hope  of  this,  which  rests  upon  the  deep  interest 
which  his  Excellency  the  Prime  Minister,  Baron  von  Munch- 
HAUSEN*  manifests  in  our  university.    This  eminent  promoter 


*  [  The  University  of  Gottingen  long  flourished  under  his  auspices ; 
for  the  space  of  more  than  thirty  years,  he  was  entrusted  with  its  interests 
as  Curator;  but,  two  years  after  the  hope  of  Michaelis  had  been  ex- 


b20  THE  USE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  yiU 

of  the  sciences  is  engaged,  in  making  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant contributions  to  historical  knowledge  in  Germany,  and 
obtaining  in  manuscript,  for  our  University,  the  Syriac  Origin 
nal  of  the  Chronicle  of  Barhebraeus.  Should  this  succeed,  it 
shall  be  my  first  concern,  in  the  subsequent*  parts  of  this 
Chrestomathy,  to  print,  as  specimens,  some  of  the  most  re- 
markable  passages  of  the  Syriac  Work,  which  are  not  found 
in  the  Arabian  Version,  and  consequently  could  not  have 
hitherto  been  used  by  our  historians.  My  wish  extends  indeed 
much  further,  and  I  would  publish  the  entire  work  with  a 
Latin  Version ;  but  this  depends  so  much  upon  the  will  of 
booksellers,  on  the  taste  of  the  public,  which  alone  engages 
publishers  in  such  an  enterprise,  and  on  my  life,  health,  and 
circumstances,  that  I  will  not  now  promise  any  thing.  But 
this  is  certain,  that  what  I  cannot  do,  will  be  done  by  others 
after  me.t 


pressed,  the  great  patron  of  learning  was  no  more.  He  died  A.  D.  1770. 
See  the  Co;jversations-Lexicon  (in  German,  an  English  translation 
of  which  is  forthcoming  at  Philadelphia,  under  the  title:  American  En- 
cyclopedia,)   Art  MOnchhausen.    Tr.  ] 

*  [  These  were  never  published.  But,  as  a  substitute  for  them,  we  are 
furnished  with  a  Syriac  Chrestomathy  by  Gustavus  Knoes,  which  is 
derived  in  great  part  from  valuable  manuscripts.  It  first  appeared  at 
Gottingcn,  in  the  year  1807.    Tr.  ] 

t  The  whole  aspect  of  things. has  been  changed  since  the  time  when 
the  above  was  written.  The  venerated  Winckelmann,  who  would  have 
been  useful  in  obtaining  the  copy  from  Rome,  was  assassinated,  and  thus 
all  failed.  But  new  hopes  have  arisen.  Prof.  Bruns  found  the  same 
work  in  the  Oxford  Library,  transcribed  it,  and  printed  a  specimen  of  it 
in  the  year  1780,  under  the  title:  Dc  rebus gestis  Richardi  Angliae  regis 
in  Palaestina.  Exccrptum  ex  Gregorii  Abulpharagii  Chronico  Syriaco. 
Edidit,  vcrtit,  illustravit  Paxil  Jac.  Bmns,  LL.  D.  Oxonii,  1780.  Since 
his  return  to  Germany,  he  has  offei:ed  an  edition  of  the  entire  work.  It 
is  very  desirable,  that  it  should  be  obtained  by  subscription  or  limitation. 
The  ordy  evil  is,  that  as  soon  as  a  particularly  useful  work,  which  proba- 
bly a  thousand  persons  would  procure  if  it  were  out,  (I  think  such  might 
well  be  the  case,  as  a  far  greater  number  of  this  Syriac  Chrestomathy  is 
already  disposed  of,  and  it  was  long  since  printed  for  the  second  time)) 
has  been  printed  by  limitation,  the  limited  copies  become  rare ;  not 
Trom  scarcity,  for  they  are  to  be  bought  afterward  at  double  price,  but 


THE    USE   OP   THE   SYRIAC    JijANGUAGE,   §.  VlJ.  521 

3.  Ecclesiastical  history  has  already  acquired  very  impor- 
tant accessions,  merely  from  Asseman's  Oriental  Library,  We 
cannot  peruse  Beausobre*s  Histoire  Critique  de  J\1anichee  et  du 
Manicheisme,  without  remarking,  how  much  light  is  shed  on 
the  history  of  Manes  by  a  single  line  of  the  Edessene  Chroni- 
jcle,*  and  what  Beausobre  in  other  respects  owes  to  Asseman. 
From  the  same  work  are  derived  some  of  the  most  important 
additions,  of  which  Mosheim  availed  himself,  as  his  guides  in 
Ecclesiastical  History.  And  yet  Mosheim,  from  his  ignorance 
of  Syriac,  could  make  only  an  imperfect  use  of  Asseman's 
work  ;  for  although  Asseman  annexes  a  Latin  translation,  and 
one  indeed  that  is  correct,  to  the  Syriac  passages  which  Mos- 
heim cites,  he  that  reads  the  text  will  discover  more,  than 
one  whose  attention,  while  he  reads  the  Latin,  is  distracted  by 
'the  intervening  lines  which  are  unknown  to  him. 

But  many  resources,  that  might  contribute  much  to  Eccle- 
siastical History,  have  not  hitherto  been  used  at  all.  The 
third  part  of  the  Syriac  Works  of  Ephrem,  which  is  almost 
entirely  directed  against  heretics,  may,  notwithstanding  its 
declamatory  tone,  and  its  want  of  solidity,  shed  much  new 
light  upon  the  History  of  Polemics.  I  have  found  this  parti- 
cularly the  case,  in  regard  to  the  Manicheaxis  ;  and  I  think  it 
^certain,  that  Beausobre  might  still  receive  considerable  ac- 
.cessions  from  Ephrem.  On  this  account,  I  propose  to  print 
something  relative  to  this,  in  the  future  portions  of  my  Chres- 
tomathy.  I  shall  make  no  mention  of  Asseman's  Acts  of  the 
Martyrs  :  for  while  in  the  history  of  the  martyrs  there  ap- 
pear to  be  many  fables,  yet  every  one  acquainted  with  Ec- 
clesiastical History  knows,  how  important  they  are,  on  ac- 


from  indifference,  and  because  no  one  has  "  public  spirit,"  as  the  English 
call  it,  to  promote  what  is  useful.  I  could  wish,  for  the  best  interests  of 
Oriental  and  Historical  literature,  that  I  might  be  put  to  the  blush  by  the 
result,  and  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  recalling  my  censure;  with  plea- 
sure would  I  do  so. 

*  It  occurs  in  the  Chrestomgithy,  at  p.  52.    [  The  extract  in  the  Chres- 
tomathy  is  from  Asseman's  Oriental  Library,  T.  i.  p.  387  ff.     Tr.  ] 


522  THE  USE  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  Vll. 

count  of  the  truth  contained  in  them,  which  a  critical  eye  can 
readily  discover. 

To  Ecclesiastical  History  appertains,  among  other  particu- 
lars, what  is  called  historia  dogmatnm.  This  is  indeed  not  as 
important  to  us,  as  to  the  Roman  Catholics,  because  we  do 
not  establish  our  faith  upon  the  authority  of  the  fathers,  or  of 
an  ancient  Church  ;  but  it  is  still  important  to  us,  in  regard  to 
the  Canon  of  the  Scriptures.  As  in  my  Introduction  to  the 
JsTew  Testament,  I  have  now  and  then  derived  something 
from  the  decision  of  the  Syrian  Church,  on  those  Books  that 
are  called  in  question,  I  must  here  correct  an  error  which  I 
have  committed.  I  stated,  p.  1899,*  that  Ephrem  Syrus  did 
not  cite  the  Revelation  of  St,  John,  in  those  places,  where 
Lardner,  from  his  ignorance  of  the  Syriac  language,  and  his 
reliance  on  Asseman's  translation,  thought  they  were  to  be 
found  cited  ;  and  this  is  and  continues  to  be  the  truth.  I 
said,  p.  1901,  that  no  passage  occurred  to  me,  where  Ephrem 
cited  the  Revelation,  (I  had  not  indeed  perused  his  work  for 
this  purpose,  but  made  extracts  from  it),  and  I  intended  to 
give  a  probable  proof,  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  authentic. 
But  this  will  not  now  hold  true  ;  for  at  p.  332.  of  the  Second 
Part  are  the  decisive  words,  which  I  here  arrange  in  the  po- 
etic form,  as  they  are  metrical : 


*  [  The  author  here  refers  to  the  second  edition  of  his  Introduction. 
In  the /ourf^  edition,  (§.278.  pp-1605.  1606.)  he  corrects  his  error; 
gives  a  German  translation  of  Ephrem's  words  ;  and  with  great  respect 
quotes  Hassencamp.  He  says,  p.  1605;  "Ephrem  Syrus,  of  whom  J 
"  believed  in  my  second  edition,  that  he  had  never  cited  the  Revelation,  bc- 
"  cause  I  found,  that  the  passages  quoted  by  Lardner  were  insufficient,  has 
"  indeed  cited  it,  and  even  as  a  divine  book.  In  the  second  part  of  his 
"  Syriac  works  he  writes,  (  p.  332.  )  expressly  :  '  John  saw,  &-c.'  " 

The  words  here  given  in  Italics  are  omitted  by  Bishop  Marsh  in 
his  Translation.  See  Vol.  iv.  Cb.  xxxni.  S.  iv.  p.  495.  of  the  Lond. 
edit,  1802.     Tr.  ] 


THK  U5K  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  VII.  52^ 

[oilLp     01^^    [ocn    u^^^ci\ 

that  is,  Joha  saw  in  his  revelation  a  great  and  wonderful  book,, 
written  by  God,  and  sealed  with  seven  seals.  M.  Hassencamp 
has  pointed  out  the  passage,  in  his  work*  against  my  Intro- 
duction, and  in  the  preface,  he  has  declared  his  -purpose  to 
make,  from  the  Syriac  Fathers,  a  collection  of  that  kind, 
which  Lardner  has  given  us  from  the  Greek  and  Latin, 
The  materials  for  such  a  collection  are  not  indeed  as  impor- 
tant, as  those  which  Lardner  had  before  him ;  because  we 
now  have  no  Syriac  writers  so  old,  and  as  testimonies,  almost 
all  relates  to  antiquity.  But  I  expect  something  more  from 
the  collector  than  from  his  precursor ;  for  Lardner  was  a 
mere  compiler,  who  always  deserved  the  thanks  of  his  read- 
ers, when  he  abstained  from  giving  them  opinions,  and 
grounds  for  deciding  :  and  in  this  Hassencamp  is  his  opposite. 
If  Lardner's  errors  are  to  be  attributed  to  his  advanced  age, 
in  which  he  continued  to  write,  Hassencamp  has  the  advan- 
tage of  being  young.  In  short,  I  include  such  a  collection 
among  the  uses,  which  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Doctrinal 
Theology  may  derive  from  Syriac  records.  This  impartial 
notice  must  not  be  regarded  as  a  singularity  in  me.  I  am 
displeased  with  no  one,  because  he  differs  somewhat  from  me 
in  opinion,  and  writes  against  me  ;  nor  yet,  because  he  disco- 
vers a  remarkable  passage,  which  I  did  not  discover.  The 
belligerent  manner  of  some  scholars  induces  me  to  think  it 
necessary,  thus  to  apologize  for  my  favourable  notice  of  M. 
Hassencamp. 


*  [  Anmerkungen  fiber  die  letzten  Paragraphen  des  H.  Hofrath  Mr- 
chaelis  Emleitung  ins  N.  T. ;  Marburg,  1767.     Tr.  ] 


534       THE  USE  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  Vll. 

3.  The  Geography  of  the  East  derives  endless  profit  from 
the  Syriac  writers,  particularly  those  of  the  middle  and  early 
ages.  I  need  only  mention  the  two  geographical  tables  of 
the  Monophysite  and  Nestorian  Episcopal  sees  and  monaste- 
ries, which  are  found  in  the  second  and  fourth  volumes  of  As- 
seman's  Library  :  and  yet  they  do  not  by  any  means  contain 
the  whole  of  what  is  geographical,  nor  do  they  cite  ali^ 
as  we  may  learn  from  Asseman.  I  am  at  least  indebted  to^ 
them  in  this  respect,  that  I  discover  much  which  before  was 
obscure,  in  ancient  geography,  particularly  that  of  Syria,- 
Chaldea,  Mesopotamia,  Assyria,  Media,  and  Persia ;  and  I 
avoid  the  false  steps  of  my  predecessors.  I  have  often  stat- 
ed, that  if  errors  or  uncertainty  prevail  in  Boch art's  Gee- 
graphy,  neither  is  this  to  be  accounted  to  the  disparagement 
of  Bochart,  nor  is  what  I*  say  more  correctly  to  be  accounted 
to  my  praise,  but  that  the  latter  belongs  to  the  good  fortune 
of  our  day,  which  in  truth  I  value  as  a  sufficient  recompense. 
Bochart  wrote  before  these  Syriac  records  were  in  prints 
and  he  could  not  predict  what  would  be  contained  in  them. 
This  is  sometimes  the  case  with  Cellarius  also,  in  his  An- 
cient Geography  ;  though  in  general  he  was  ignorant  of  that 
only,  which  he  might  have  learned  from  Asseman,  if  he  had 
lived  in  his  day ;  and  he  commits  few  faults  of  his  own. 
The  views  of  Cellarius  were  indeed  far  more  correct  than 
those  of  Bochart,  who  was  partial  to  a  hypothesis  chosen  al- 
most by  an  absolute  decree,  and  was  far  too  etymological* 
The  Rector  of  Merseburg  appears  in  the  character  of  the 
judicious  man,  and  the  Frenchman,  who  was  advanced  at 
court,  is  the  etymologizing  pedant :  and  still,  (with  what  in- 
justice !)  Bochart  is  valued  in  Germany  more  highly  than 
Cellarius.  Yet  while  Cellarius  discovers  a  Syrian  city,  Ma- 
gog, which  is  nowhere  to  be  found,  but  which  it  was  thought 
Pliny  mentioned  in  his  Hist.  Kat.  L.  V.  c.  23. ,t  and  the  ex- 


*[  Our  author  here  alludes  to  his  work  entitled:  Sper/degium  Geo- 
graphiae  Hcbraeorum  exlcrac  post  Bocharlum,  Goetting.  1769.  1780.  S 
vols.  4to.     Tr.  ] 

+  Bnmhycen,  quae  alio  nomine  HierapoUs  vacatur,  Syris  vero  Magog. 


THE  USE  OP  THE  SVRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  VII.  525 

cessively  sceptical  Harduin  did  not  doubt  of  this,  but  was 
more  inclined  to  think  of  Gog  and  Magog ;  on  the  contrary, 
it  immediately  follows  from  Ass e man's  Library,  that  we  must 

read  Mabog,  and  have  no  thought  of  Magog  :  for «.  ^<.  O  ^  ^ 

IS  the  city  of  Hierafolis*  in  Syria. 

The  only  writer,  who  has  hitherto  employed  these  records 
for  a  geographical  purpose,  is  Dr.  Bu^^cHl^G,  in  his  Description 
of  Asia,  It  is  not  yet  to  be  had  in  book-stores  ;t  but  as  I  am 
in  possession  of  the  first  sheets  of  it,  I  can  state,  that  AssKMA»^i's 
Oriental  Library  is  one  of  the  best  and  most  advantageously 
applied  resources  of  this  Geography.  Dr.  Bushing's  purpose 
is  properly  the  Geography  of  modern  times,  and  the  present 
condition  of  the  earth  ;  yet  he  has  much  of  what  relates  to  the 
middle  and  the  early  ages.  If  I  would  treat  of  these  in  refe- 
rence to  the  Scriptures,  how  much  aid  do  I  then  derive  from 


*  [  This  is  the  city  which  contained  the  celebrated  temple  of  the 
goddess  |^\V?^  ^^  I  A">^i^  Xhartho  or  Theratbo  ;  and  it  has 
had  the  following  names  : 

1.  In  Syriac  «,y>022o  Mabug  ; 

2.  In  Arabic  ^sy^^J^^lm^  Jo  Manbodg,  from  which,  by  an  ea- 
sy change  of  letters,  may  have  originated, 

3.  In  Greek  and  Latin  Bambvce. 

4.  It  was  afterward  called  Hierapolis,  ('lega'To^/f, )  the  Holy 
City ;  and 

5.  Its  present  name  is  Mabug,  which  is  pronounced  Mambedge. 

See  MiCHAELis'  Lex.  Syr.  on  the  words  ^.^OSio  and  j ^^^^  '^ 

See  also  Malte-Brun's  Geog.  Vol.  n.  P.  i.  B.  xxvni.  Ruins  of  Hiera" 
polis.     Tr.  ] 

t  Itis  evident,  that  this  must  be  understood  of  the  year  1768,  and  not 
of  1786,  as  the  second  edition  of  the  work  may  have  already  been  in  a 
great  measure  disposed  of.  [  An  English  translation  of  Dr.  Busching's 
Geography  was  published  in  England,  in  the  year  1754, 6  vols.  4to.;  and 
an  English  Translation  with  36  maps,  which  I  now  have  before  me,  af- 
terward appeared.    Lwid.,  1762,  6  vols.  4to.,   Tr.  ] 


526  THE  USE  OB'  THE  Sl'RIAC  LANGUAGE,    §.  VII. 

Syriac !  The  Syrian  Zobah  of  David  has  been  dihgently 
sought  for,  and  nowhere  found ;  but  at  last,  from  mere  con- 
jectures, and  moreover  in  opposition  to  the  whole  connexion 
of  history,  it  has  been  placed  on  this  side  of  the  Euphrates. 
They  were  the  records  of  Syria  alone,  that  ever  taught  me,  this 
was  a  kingdom,  the  chief  city  of  which  was  Nisibis  ;  for  such 

is  the  Syriac  L  ^  O  t.  •* 

I  have  as  yet  spoken  only  of  one  book.  It  is  not  necessary 
for  me  to  remark,  that  out  of  the  Jets  of  the  Martyrs  also, 
geographical  knowledge  may  be  obtained ;  and  how  much 
must  be  expected,  if  we  acquire  more  Syriac  works,  particu- 
larly that  above  mentioned  of  Gregory  Barhebraeus  ! 

Geography  becomes  possessed  of  those  regions,  in  which 
the  Syriac  language  was  formerly  spoken,  if  we  find  the  pro- 
per names  of  Countries,  Cities,  Rivers  and  Mountains,  writ- 
ten in  Syriac  letters.  As  long  as  we  are  acquainted  with  them 
in  European  letters,  we  are  often  in  danger  of  making  two 
cities  out  of  one  name  that  is  differently  written.  And  two 
actually  different  cities,  the  names  of  which  do  not  admit  of 
being  readily  confused  in  Oriental  orthography,  but  from  the 
imperfection  of  our  alphabet,  when  they  are  written  in  Euro- 
pean letters,  sound  nearly  alike,  may  be  regarded  as  the  same. 
At  another  time,  we  mistake  an  Oriental  name,  if  we  have  it 
before  us,  merely  in  our  own  orthography :  as  many  know,  it 
must  have  happened  in  regard  to  Jocheh's  learned  Lexicon, 
under  the  article  Hebedjesu,  where  is  given  a  Syrian  city, 
called  Saba  ;  but  no  one  would  hence  suppose  that  this  city 

was  written  y£^Ojf,  and  revealed  to  us  that  Zoba,    H31V. 

with  the  king  of  which  David  w  aged  such  dreadful  wars. 


**  See  my  treatise  De  Syria  Sohaea,  which  was  read  before  our  Society, 
on  the  16th  of  November,  1765,  and  shall  appear  in  the  second  part  of 
my  Commentationes  Societati  Scientiarum  oblalae.   [  The  Syrians  and  Arabs 

call  it  — .Aill^aLt  A      and    /J^»^-^•^•A^■',  iVetsiiin  and iVafsiAiw, from 

which  the  Greeks  have  derived  lSi<ri0i(,  on  Coins  Nesibis  and  according 
to  Stephens  Nax/,/?/?.  See  Gesenius'  Hebr,  Dent.  Handw.  n3fy-  Tr.  ] 


THE  USE  OP  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  VII.  527 

4.  The  Syrian  Interpreters  of  the  Scriptures  appear  to  me, 
to  be  worthy  of  regard.  From  my  own  use,  I  am  acquainted 
only  with  Ephrem  f  for  the  others  are  not  in  print,  and  I 
possess  no  manuscripts  of  them.  But  I  will  describe  his  work, 
according  to  my  view  of  it.  ' 

We  shall  generally  in  vain  consult  him  for  elucidations  of 
Hebrew  words,  and  particular  philological  observations  ;  be- 
cause he  comments  on  the  Syriac  Version,  and  not  on  the 
original  text.  What  is  valuable  therefore  in  jERtuwE,  and 
what  Ephrem,  by  means  of  his  native  language,  might  have 
more  fully  effected,  he  has  not  effected.  On  the  contrary,  in 
a  favourable  point  of  view  he  is  the  opposite  of  J;  aoME.  As 
the  latter  seems  to  love  truth  almost  solely  for  philology,  and 
to  reserve  nothing  for  the  explanation  of  the  subject  that  is 
homiletic  or  allegorical ;  Ephrem  is  judicious  in  this  respect, 
and  sometimes  acute  ;  no  friend  of  miracles,  and  still  less  of 
fables.  And  in  the  prophecies,  he  is  free  from  the  propensity 
of  endeavouring  to  find  Christ  every  where,  even  when  not 
the  subject  of  prediction.  A  disciple  of  Cocceius,  therefore, 
would  not  be  satisfied  with  him ;  but  that  is  no  disparagement. 

I  will  give  one  or  two  examples  of  his  way  of  thinking. 
He  thus  understands  Genesis  iv.  1.    I  have  borne  a  man-child 

unto  the  Lord.     This  is  incorrect :  for  l.^i.— JSO—^  must 

be  the  accusative,  on  account  of  the  Hebrew.t  But  yet 
I  commend  him,  because  he  was  not  disposed  to  ascribe  to 
Eve  the  knowledge  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christ. 

Chap.  VI.  4.  he  calls  the  sons  of  God,    ^m,J^m^'A^^    judges. 

He  had  previously  explained  :  the  sons  of  Seth,  which  are  the 
people  of  God,      In  the  second  interpretation,  did  he  refer  to 


*  [  This  celebrated  Syriac  author  lived  in  the  fourth  century.  He 
was  commended  in  the  loftiest  terms  by  the  Greeks,  Latins,  Copts  and 
Armenians ;  and  was  entitled  by  the  Syrians  Master  of  the  World.  See 
Hoffmanh's  Prolegomena  to  his  Syriac  Grammar,  §.  2.  N.  J.  Annot.  3. 
Jr.] 
t  [  :  mnr'n^  B^^N  '•nop  is  the  Hebrew  ;  and  the  Samaritan  is 

IT    •       V         V      -J*  It 

precisely  the  same.     Tr.  1 


528  THE  USE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  Vll. 

Psalm  Lxxxii.  6.  ?  He  is  not  willing  that  giants  should  be 
found  in  this  chapter,  and  to  get  rid  of  them,  he  assumes,  that 
the  posterity  of  Cain,  who  inhabited  an  unproductive  region, 
were  diminutive,  and  therefore  the  well-grown  posterity  of 
Seth  seemed  to  be  giants. 

In  Chapter  vni.  14.  he  makes  the  observation,  that  as  early 
as  the  time  of  Noah,  the  Solar  year,  consisting  of  365  days, 
seems  to  have  been  known  ;  for  on  the  17th.  day  of  the  second 
month  the  deluge  began,  and  it  ended  on  the  27th.  of  the  same 
month,  in  the  year  following.     If  then  we  reckon : 

days, 
from  tlie  17th.  of  the  second  month  to  the  16th.  of 
the  same  in  the  following  year,  by  the  lunar  year,    354 
and  thence  to  the  27th -     -     -       11 


the  result  is  just       -  - ^     -     -     365 

Whether  the  suggestion  be  true  or  not,  it  evinces  no  or- 
dinary genius.  Another  might  perhaps  have  said  more  pro- 
perly, God  afforded  the  means  of  discovering  the  true  year, 
but  Ephrem  gave  rise  to  the  suggestion. 

In  Chap.  X.  9.  we  recognize  the  Mesopotamian,  who  thought 
more  favourably  of  Nimrod,  than  other  Commentators  are 
accustomed  to  do.  No  one  interprets  the  10th.  and  11th. 
verses  better  than  he.  Ephrem  was  at  home  in  this  country, 
and  was  acquainted  with  the  common  and  the  ancient  names 
of  cities. 

In  Chap.  XV.  1 — 7.  he  so  writes,  that  we  must  believe,  by 
righteousness  he  understands  as  much  as  a  merit :  faith  was 
reckoned  to  Abraham  as  a  merit,  and  was  rewarded  by  God 
with  the  performance  of  such  great  promises. 

He  suggests,  at  Chap,  xxvui.  12.,  very  judiciously,  the  lad- 
der has  no  appropriate  signification,  but  is  introduced,  that  the 
angels  may  ascend  and  descend  upon  it :  yet  these  angels  are 
a  representation  of  divine  providence  in  behalf  of  Jacob.* 


*  L  The  Author  adds  some  further  observations,  derived  from  Ephrem, 
which  it  is  thought  proper  to  omit.  Some  ^^examples  of  his  mode  of 
interpretation  are  given  above  in  this  volunje.    See  pp.  454.  455.    Tr.  jj 


THE   USE  OF  THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE,  §.  VII.  55J9 

These  examples  may  very  well  suffice,  to  excite  to  the  study 
of  the  Biblical  Interpretation  of  this  Father.  But  I  wish  we 
liad  several  other  interpreters,  whom  Asseman  mentions,  and 
who  might  in  part  be  of  more  importance  than  the  ascetic 
Ephrem. 

MosHEiM,  in  his  InMituliones  Historiae  Ecclesiasticae,  p. 
208,*  writes  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  (who  is  mentioned 
in  this  Chrestomathy,  p.  4.  t )  :  *'  Theodori  Mopsuesteni  opera, 
quamvis  post  obitum  maximorum  errorum  accusatus  sit,  aut 
prorsus  periisse,  aut  inter  Nestorianos  hodie  tantum  Syriace 
legi,  dolebunt  cuncti,  qui  vel  ea  considerarunt,  quae  Photius 
ex  illis  retulit."  [  Although  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  after  his 
death,  was  accused  of  very  great  errors,  the  loss  of  his  works, 
or  their  existence  at  present  among  the  Nestorians  in  Syriac 
only,  is  lamented  by  all,  who  have  paid  attention  merely 
to  what  Photius  has  cited  out  of  them.  ]  And  he  writes, 
at  p.  211: if — "Nemo  iongius  in  reprehendendis  Origenis 
sectatoribus  progressus  est,  quam  Theodorus  Mopsuestenus, 
qui  ....  etiam  in  commentariis  suis  ad  veteris  Testamenti 
vates,  ex  antiquiori  historia  oracula  eorum  pleraque  declarare, 
ausus  est."  [  No  one  went  further,  in  censuring  the  fol- 
lowers of  Origen,  than  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  who  ....  in 
his  Commentaries  on  tlie  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  did 
not  hesitate  to  explain  most  of  their  predictions  by  ancient 
history.  ]  It  may  well  be  the  case,  that  Theodore  goes  too 
far,  by  not  interpreting  of  Christ  certain  passages  which  ac- 
tually relate  to  him,  so  that  he  may  be  regarded  as  a  Judaizing 
interpreter.  But  a  Christian  expositor,  who  in  a  certain  de- 
gree thinks  with  Grotius  and  Le  Clerc,  and  is  of  so  re- 
mote  a  period,  may  teach  us  much  that  is  unknown  ;  and  he 
is  better  than  a  Jerome.    Perhaps  he  has  not  gone  too  far,  but 


*  [  The  passage  is  to  be  found  in  Mosheiai's  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  v.  P.  ir. 
Ch.  II.  §.  X. ;  in  the  Hclmstadt  edition  (A.  D.  1764),  at  p.  186.      Tr.  ] 

t  [  This  mention  of  Theodore  occurs  in  the  "  Epistle  of  Simeon, 
Bishop  of  Betharsama,  concerning  the  Nestorians."  found  in  Assemak's 
Oriental  Library,  T.  i.  p.  346  fF.       Tr.  ] 

t  [  See  Mosheim's  Eccl.  Hist.,  Cent.  v.  P.  ii.  Ch.  iii.  §•  v.  ;  ia  the 
Helvtst,  edition  (A.  D.  J1764),.  at  p.  189.      Tr.  ] 
67 


530  THE  USE  OF  THE  SFRIAC  LANGUAGE. 

while  innocent  is  accused  by  those  who  are  uninformed,  as 
Mosheim  seems  to  think.* 


^  [  The  character  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  as  a  Commentator  on 
the  Scriptures,  is  given  by  Dr.  J.  G,  Rosknmuller  in  his  Hisioria  Inter- 
pretationis  Librorum  Sacrorum,  Vol.  iii.  pp.250 — 265.  of  the  edit.  Leipzig, 
1807.  On  the  subject  of  the  Literature  of  Syria  in  general,  Hoffmann 
wrote  an  Essay  (which  appeared  in  Bektholdt's  Theological  Journal, 
T.  XIV.  pp.  225 — ^291.)  entitled :  Kurlze  Geschichte  der  Syrischen  Litlera- 
tur.  Brief  History  of  Syriac  Literature.  On  the  History  of  the  SyriMc 
Language  also,  he  treats  at  large,  in  the  valuable  Prolegomma  which  ac- 
company his  Grammar.      Tr.  ] 


THE   STRIAC   LANGUAGE. 
APPENDIX, 

BY   THE   TRANSLATOR. 


531 


The  best  elementary  works,  for  the  study  of  the 
Syriac  Language. 


Until  the  commencement  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the 
Syriac  Language  had  been  httle  studied  in  Europe;  but 
since  that  period,  it  has  engaged  the  attention,  and  been  illus- 
trated by  the  publications  of  very  numerous  and  able  writers. 

Among  the  elementary  books,  which  have  appeared,  the 
following  may  be  regarded  as  particularly  valuable  to  the  Sy- 
riac student. 

I.  Grammars. 

1.  Henry  Ofitz's  Syriasmus,  Leipzig  and  Frankfort,  1678, 
4to. 

It  is  highly  commended  by  HoPFMAifN,  (  Gram.  Syr.  Prolegg.^.  5.  2, ) 
as  excelling  all  that  preceded  it. 

2.  John  David   Michaelis'  Grammatica  Syriaca,  Halae, 

1784. 

This  is  little  more  tbau  a.  revised  edition  of  the  Syriasmus  of  Chris- 
tian Benedict  Michaelis,  the  author's  father.  The  work  is  not  a 
mere  compilation,  as  most  publications  of  the  kind,  but  is  original,  and 
the  result  of  indefatigable  labour.  Its  copious  Paradigms  of  verbs  and 
nouns  are  very  useful.    The  volume  is  a  small  quarto,  pp.  299. 

3.  Andrew  Theophilus  Hoffmann's  Grammaticae  Syria- 
CAE  LiBRi  III.  Halae,  1827. 

No  other  Grammar  of  the  language  will  compare  with  this.  Hoff- 
mann occupies,  in  Striac,  the  place  assigned  to  De  Sacy  in  Arabic,  and 
to  Gesenius  in  Hebrew  Literature.  To  the  Syriac  student,  no 
other  elementary  work  can  be  as  valuable.  It  is  a  quarto  volume, 
pp.  418. 


532  THE    SYRIAC    LANGUACTE. 


IL  Lexicons. 
}.  Edmund  Castell's  Lexicon  Syriacum. 

It  originally  appeared,  as  part  of  the  Heptaglot  Lexicok,  which  gc 
nerally  accompanies  the  London  Polyglot,  and  was  published  at  Lon^ 
don,  1669.     Dr.  Castell  was  aided  in  the  execution  of  it  by  Bishop  Be- 

VEKIDGE. 

2.  John  David  Michaelis' edition  of  this  work. 

It  was  published  in  a  separate  form,  at  Gdttingen,  1788,  and  is  enti- 
tled :  Edmundi  Castelli  Lexicon  Syriacum,  ex  ejus  Lexico  Heptaglotto 
seorsim  typis  describi  curavit  atque  stia  adnotaia  adjecit  Joannes  David 
MicHAELis.    It  consists  of  two  volumes  4tG.,  pp.  978. 

S.  Charles  Schaaf's  Lexicon  Syriacum  Concordantiale, 
•  ,  Lugd.  Bat,  1708. 

This  admirable  work  contains  all  the  words  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  at  the  same  time  numerous  other  words  and  phrases,  belonging  to 
the  Syriac  and  its  kindred  languages.  It  has  also  very  useful  indexes, 
in  Syriac  and  Latin.  Hoffmann  (  in  his  Gramm.  Syr.  Prolegg.  §.  5. 
3. )  says  of  this  Lexicon :  It  can  scarcely  ever  fail  the  student  of  the  New 
Testament. 

4.  Etienne  Quatremere's  Syriac  Lexicon. 

This  indefatigable  student  has  for  some  time  contemplated  a  Lexi. 
con.  He  has  examined,  with  this  view,  all  Syriac  works  now  in  prints 
and  some  MSS.  also  ;  he  has  visited  the  rich  treasures  in  the  Oxford 
library  and  the  Vatican  :  and  the  result  of  his  labours  will,  no  doubt- 
be  a  far  more  complete  Syriac  Lexicon  than  any  extant. 


III.  Chrestomathies* 


L  JoiiN  David  MicHAELis' Syriac  Chrestomathy,  Goitin- 
gen. 

It  was  the  original  design  of  the  author,  to  issue  this  work  in  parts. 
The  first  Part,  however,  is  all  that  appeared.  It  is  a  small  octavo  vo- 
lume ;  and  comprises  a  Treatise  ( in  German  )  on  the  Syriac  Language  and 
its  use  (pp.  I24.small  8vo.  ),  and  a  Syriac  Chrestomathy  (pp.  118.).  The 
first  edition  of  the  work  appeared  at  Gottingen,  in  1768 ;  and  the  second 
edition,  containing  some  additional  notes  to  the  Treatise,  was  published 
at  the  same  place,  in  1786. 


THE  SYRIAC  LANGUAGE.  533 

EiCHHORK  (in  his  Allgemeinc  Bibliotkek  der  Ubl.  Litt.  B.  i.  SS.  144 
—148.)  gives  a  brief  notice  of  the  second  edition  of  the  Treatise  ; 
and  a  critical  examination  of  certain  passages  in  the  Chrestomathy 
was  published  by  J.  F.  Gaab,  in  Paulus'  Neues  Repertorium  fUr  bib- 
lische  und  morgenldndischt  Litteratur,  Th.  iii.  Abh.  xi.  S3.  366 — 
378. 

2.  George  William  Kirsch's   Syriac  Chrestomathy,  Ho- 
fae,  1789. 

This  is  an  octavo  volume,  including  a  Chrestomathy,  and  a  Lexi- 
con. The  Chrestomathy,  highly  commended  by  Hoffmann,  is  derived 
chiefly  from  the  Chronicle  of  Barhi  braeus.  It  has  other  extracts 
also  from  this  author's  writings,  and  from  those  of  Ephrem  Syrus.  The 
Lexicon  is  very  useful. 

A  brief  notice  of  the  work  is  given  by  Eichhorn,  in  his  Allgemeine 
Bihliothekderbibl.  Litt.  B.  n.  SS.  548—550. 

3.  GusTAvus   Knoes'    Syriac    Chrestomathy,    Gottingen, 
1807. 

On  this  valuable  work,  derived  chiefly  fromMSS.,  see  above,  p. 
520. 

4.  O.  G.  Tychsen's  Elementale  Syriacum,  Rostock,  1793. 

Beside  a  Chrestomathy  (pp.  112.  small  octavo),  and  a  Glossary  (pp. 
113 — 169  ),  this  work  contains'  a  comprehensive  Grammar,  of  which 
EicHHORN  (  in  his  Allgemeine  Bibliotliek  der  bibl.  Litt.  B.  viii.  S.  699. ) 
says  :  "  To  this  Grammar,  which  consists  of  only  31  pages>  we  may 
with  strict  propriety  apply  the  adage  Short  and  Good,'^ 

The  work  is  accompanied  with  nine  well-executed  plates,  contain- 
ing various  specimens  of  Syriac  MSB.,  transcribed  at  Rome  by  Ab- 
ler. It  comprises  28  specimens  ( pp.  32 — 82  )  of  pointed  Syriac, 
and  a  number  of  Extracts  (  pp.  82 — 1 12  )  not  pointed.  The  volume 
contains  169  pages,  and  is  perhaps  to  be  preferred  to  any  other  manual 
of  the  language. 


Many  new  works,  relating  to  the  Oriental  Languages  in 
general,  and  to  the  Syriac  in  particular,  have  recently  appear- 
ed. The  importance  of  these  languages  seems  to  be  more 
and  more  discovered  ;  and  the  sentiments  of  Professor  Lee 
of  Cambridge  (in  the  Preface  to  his  admirable  Hebrezo  Gram- 
mar, pp.  xvu — XIX.),  it  is  hoped,  will  soon  become  the  prevail- 
ing sentiments  of  those  who  profess  to  be  expounders  of  the 
Sacred  Volume.    "  To  expect  fully  to  make  out  an  Oriental 


ii'M  THE    SYRIAC   LANGUAcf. 

book,  such  as  the  Bible  is,  without  the  assistance  of  Orien- 
tal learning,  is,  in  my  estimation,  a  perfect  absurdi- 
ty     The   names  of  Pococke,    Castell,   De  Dieu, 

Schultens,  Schroeder,  and  others,  will  ever  be  revered  by 

those  who  appreciate  the  Holy  Scriptures They  have 

left  behind  them  enough  to  convince  every  candid  mind, 
that  there  are  in  these  dialects  treasures  innumerable,  which 
have  escaped  their  observation Generally  speak- 
ing, he  who  is  best  acquainted  with  these  dialects,  is  by  far 
the  most  likely  person  to  be  a  successful  commentator  on 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures." 


INDEXES. 

I.  Texts  illustrated. 

II.  Words  and  Phrases  explaiked. 

III.  Authors  and  Books  quoted. 

IV.  General  Index  of  Matters, 


537 


INDEX  I. 


TEXTS  OF  SCRIPTURE  ILLUSTRATED. 


GsNESis.      Page. 

IV.  1 527. 

VI.  4 527. 

VIII.  14 528. 

X.  9. 528. 

XV.  1—7.    ....  528. 

XXVIII.  12.       ...  528. 

XXX.  14 158. 

Leviticus. 

XI.  29  s 154. 

XIX.  19 158. 

Df,utsko>-omy. 

vut.  3 494. 

16 494. 

Judges.  • 

IX.  8— 15.    .     .    220.248?. 

TI  Samuel. 

VII.  12 173, 

XII.  1—9.  .     .    •.     .  233. 

Psalms. 

XXII.  32 247. 

XXXVI.  9 375. 

10.       ...  361. 

ex.  1 188  ss. 

—  2 197. 

CXXXVIT.  R.       .  .  %i7. 


PnovERBS.    Page. 

vn.22 166. 

Isaiah. 

I.  22 491. 

VI.  6 ,  164. 

XIV.  23 490. 

XXII.  22.    ....  204. 

XXV.  7 611  ss. 

6—8.       .     .     .  614. 

L.5 '435. 

Lii.  13— LIU.  4.  .     .  424  s, 

Lvin:  11.   .     .     .     .  376. 

Jeremiah. 

xLix.  1.  2.       ...  21J. 

Joe  I.. 

1.  19 359, 

Amos. 

IX.  11.  12.      .     .  '.  199s. 

Jonah. 

IV.  6 158. 

Zkchariah. 

XIV.  8 37^>, 


08 


538 


INDEX  OP  TEXTS  ILLUSTRATED. 


Malachi.     Page. 

11.7 345. 

Matthew. 
( 

V.  19,20 209. 

—  25  s 247. 

VII.  15 365. 

21 209. 

vin.  17 411, 

XI.  11.        ....  184. 

—  12 185. 

XIII.  3.       ....  234. 

3ssi-.    .      218.228.231. 

24  ss.     .     .    .  228.231. 

31.47.    .      202.228.231. 

44 261s. 

52.     ....  205. 

XV.  5 340. 

XVI.  28 497  ». 

xviii.  1—10.       .    .  502. 

23  ss.    .     .     .  172. 232. 

34 246. 

XX.  1 1  s 259. 

XXI.28SS.      .     .     .  229. 

31 209. 

33 250. 

xxTi.  3.       ....  258  s. 

4.       ....  250. 

10 238. 

12  ss.     .    .    .  239  s. 

13 238. 

xxiii.  13 209. 

XXIV.  32 215. 

XXV.  1 202. 

30 238  s. 

Mark. 

IV.  30  s 217. 

—  33 234. 

IX.  1.    .     .    .      179.  497  s. 

—  33—50      .     .     .  502. 

XII.  34 185. 

XIII.  28 215. 

Luke. 

I.  33 188. 


Luke. 


F&Se- 


I.  53 347. 

V.36 215. 

VII.  28 184. 

VI  n.  10 236. 

IX.  27.  .     .     .      179.497  s. 

—  62 205. 

X.  11. 203. 

XI.  5  ss.      .     .     .    .  217. 

—  22 331. 

XII.  16 225. 

41 215. 

XIII.  7 255. 

19.     ....  217. 

XIV.  21. 23.     .    .    .  248. 

XV.  3 215. 

—  21 250.  ' 

—  22  ss 250  s. 

XVI.  22.  .  .  .  .  268. 
22.  23.     .     .     .  364. 

XVII.  20.  21.   .    .    .  182. 

XVIII.  2 217. 

9 225. 

10  ss.    .    .    .  225. 

XIX.  13 250. 

—  17  ss.  ...  268. 
— -  27  ....  246. 
xsi.  29.      ....  215. 

XXII.  16 207. 

xxm.  42.  ....  179. 

John.  * 

1.  14. 18.    .    .    362—364. 

HI.  1 381. 

VII.  38.       ....  376. 

vm.  12 361. 

44 337. 

——52 497  s. 

X.  6 222. 

xriii.  37.   ....  181. 

Acts. 

V.  17 288. 

VII.  16 167. 

xm.  34.     ....  186  s. 

35—37.       .    .  186. 

XV.  5 288. 


INDEX  OP  TEXTS  ILLUSTRATED. 


539 


Romans.  Page. 

IV.  17.  .    .    .    .    .  301. 

V.  7 167. 

X.2 349. 

X.  6.  7 167. 

XII.  2 380. 

1  Corinthians. 

I. -17 347. 

—  20 350. 

VIII.  1 345  s. 

xn.  12— 27.    .    .     .  216. 

xiii.  1 339. 

XV.  3 329. 

—  24—27.     .     .    .  190  ss. 

—  •28.* 192  ss. 

—  29.  .    .    .     .    .  195SS. 

2  Corinthians. 

XII.  7.    .    .    :    .    .  499. 

GulItians. 

V.20 289. 

VI.  16 ^,  329. 

EPHBSIANS. 

II.  2.      .    .     .    378-^84. 

—  12.    .....  185. 

IT.  16 343. 

VI.  12 383  8. 

Philippians. 

111.16 3«9s. 


Colossi  AN  9.  Page. 

I.  II.      .    .     .    322-344. 
11.15 383 )». 

1  Timothy. 

VI.  20.    .    .    .    344— Q52. 

Hebrews. 

n.9 497  s. 

ni.l 358. 

—  12 195. 

— 15—19.     .     .    .  194  6. 

IX.  9 215. 

XI.  3 301. 

—  5 497. 

XII.  26 210. 

2  Peter. 

I.  16.     .....    348. 

II 368—378. 

II.  1 289, 

HI. 378. 

1  John. 

II.  18  s.  22  s.  26.     .    364  ss. 

III.  4.    .    .    .    .    .    366  s. 

—  9 367  8. 

IV.  1—3 364  ss. 


INDEX  II. 


WORDS  AND  PHRASES  JEXPLAIIVED. 


Hebrew  and  Chalde£.  Page. 

np3i<  -    -    ^    -    ^    ^    -    -    -  154. 

2nx   --------    -  370. 

y^l    -------    ^    -  *369. 

pjj     ---------  35. 

I^T -    .    .    .  357. 

rj^T     -^  -     -    -    .    ^    -    -    -  380. 

Dl'n   -    .     -     - 178. 

biVn 512. 

iflDin 154- 

inn 152. 

N0X13 490. 

DX'P 491 

^rr-'p^D "^^i- 

J^niDT  «DpID  |^l3;;t0   -    -    -    -  498. 

nj^n" 494. 

^j^-^^            -    - 200. 

-,3^     .........  340. 

ri^ 154. 

5i?       -  • 152. 

nDD :•  -   -   -  158. 

nxoS     -  - 154. 

ID'    aSlHD 491. 

.|T-  T 

^no "    -    -    -  491s. 

Xt3.^pp    .--"---.  490. 

,sSd'  -----    ^         -     .  36?. 


Hebrew  and  Chaldee.  Page. 

^xSd   -    -    -    ■ 358. 

ffD 183, 

n3DD       --------    513. 

NVO 179. 

TT 

I  Paragogic  -    -^  -    -    -    -    -    493. 
N^3J     .-..'.•--.    30.82. 

•T 

^DJ -    -    -    613. 

yJ-  -  '■ 154. 

nj12f  -    -. 526. 

nXT 341.361. 

TT 

nSlf^ 164. 

nJl?V^ 158. 

O^W    -    -    -    - ^12' 

riDtirin -  -  154. 

Arabic. 
JL^^T 222. 

ei- i.-:^  ^^  L-^  498 

0\-—**^«-i2k  and  its  deriVa- 
lives 514 

^yk.J^Ji.AOi        ....     526 


INDEX   OP  WORDS   ANIX 

Syriac  Page. 

^^A^2| 500SS. 

j2al»^  \,sbb 497s. 

}1a*^-.:SO-.^    527. 

«.^0^10 v.. ..525. 

Nun  Paragogic 494. 

i.m:^-> *»5i4. 

Y^^l^^A    526. 

I-Lol ii. 

\a^Ai3  494. 

^Xilfl  ,ik 

^^V-O A.' ik 

Gruek. 

'AyaTTdot 370. 

^Ay^dufA.uroi 321. 

"A(r«c 374s. 

A»g 3S2s. 

Ai/ji*  Kcti  fl-sc'gl 383. 

A/iroc 216. 

Aifg«(r/c 288  s. 

Aleiv 378  ss. 

''AvaaTHva.i 177. 

AirT»5rc<rc9-/f 238. 

'AtTlx^irot 364  ss, 

^Amit^u<pot 35  .s. 

'A^X.'^i  Kal  i^ovaUt  334.  383. 

'Ag;t» 68s. 

"Ag;^** 378.  381  ss, 

'A<riKytiit 369. 

Baa-ixtiA 181.198.210. 

B«ri\ii<t  Toy  eicD 209 


PHRASES   JOXPIiAINElJ.  .">41 

Greek.  ^ag^- 

Bx<rikti(X,  Tm  cv^ittuv.,   185. 

BafftXiua-ui 207. 

BlX^OfAXl 185. 

TtuofAu.1 o344. 

Tiv(i/uut  BavATov '  496  S. 

Tv^a-ic 344  ss.  395. 

Tg4/ufjia.'T* 321. 

As 194. 

AMajtc 204. 

^ta<pBo^ti 186. 

'Efie^ofi^«ff/c«la f^38. 

'E8f/« 337. 

"h-tiDj 194. 

Eif  TOK  cclutat 188. 

EKXiKTxi .-...   260. 

'EAc^aTtya.. 341. 

'E/c/.ir«»JtT3ti .  i 378. 

•Ezr«/vf« 340. 

^f.irecKi^uro 201. 

RirtfAvbtuv 220.240. 

^'E^X.'^fiiivov  iig  T«K    0(1- 

fthtiav 179. 

^F.VityytKi^ofiitvoi 185. 

Zo^oc 374. 

Z»»'.... 360ss. 

QitVu  etTiOt. . 309. 

Qfohay'nt 320. 

ayyiy^cev 336.  339. 

X«v(Ji'/o» 34  note. 

Kctvonjt<5f 34. 

KaVtoK 34. 

Y^ant^gt^vjoi 342. 

Y^tKKvifxivovi 247. 

K«A4iv«f 167. 

K8»o« „ 346  s. 

A&yoi. ..  216.  221.223.  356  ss 

A«/<rjjf 204. 

Mixxins 167. 

MiK   iK<fxivo,uiyav 301 . 

Mj»iroTe 236. 

Mi*g^TSgOC 182. 

Moioytyic- 362  s 

N8?8X«t/  vttO  XaihciTroe 
(KavnfAtvai 375.  377 


542  IJIDEX    OF    WORDS    Aj\I> 

Greek.  Page. 

tiwi^tt  and  -biiat^K.,.  526. 

'O    our   tie    TOV    KdKTTOV 

TOW  T*Tgof 364. 

'0§% 341. 

"OffAi 187. 

'Ot«v. 194, 

nag   /gir'xAa 215. 

Ha.^a$o\i^ 215.  221  s. 

notgacToo-zf 327. 

Tla^*\atiu04vev 211. 

Tlatgoi/nta ,...,..    222. 

n«f 192. 

TltS'ctktai 161. 

Il8g*T!*    TXC   T'iJC 166  S. 

Uiiyai  'i'wS'got 375  s. 

nhtovt^ix 369. 

nx»5a/uct 332.  363. 

Tou  ©sow 207. 

HviuMa 333. 

nox«T«7«.. 184  s. 

rigo^ufi/oy 240. 

n^otri^tn  T<y/ 348. 

ngo4.»T«c 30.  53.  82. 

ng«T«t 329. 

2«5| 328. 

SitstvcTaXiffl) 499  ss. 

iKMiSiXiv ih, 

2k/x 334. 

IkvKov 331. 

2o«})»«t  x*^^*''i*>-  •'  ^8.  310. 

'^iro^x 380. 

2To/;t«'* 328  ss. 

2w^«T»T>)f 350. 

'SvKctyaiyut 331. 

Swxov ib- 

SeTjUai 334. 

Trf  jUM  <})a<vo^iey«t 301. 

Trt  o»T«t «6- 

iyy'iKtov 339.341. 


PHRASES    EXPLAINED. 

GnEEK.  Page. 

TagTsfgoo) 374. 

T/At» 339s. 

Tdre 195. 

*</o«rc<j)/tf .  308.  319  ss.  327.  346. 

Tii^atK 308  s. 

ibm 360  ss. 

Xs/^d>gst4>o>'.. 333. 

y^o^i\yia> 342  s. 

'¥ivS'oSiSet<TK*hoi 368  ss. 

'^tvSo'r^<i<^yrtti 364  ss. 

'ariHi 187. 


Latin,  French,  German 
AND  English. 

Abstracta  feminini . . . « .  603. 

J^.tas 380. 

Apocrypha 35  s. 

Argern 501.. 

Buffet 499. 

Canon  and  canonical.  33  s.  36. 39. 

Cup  of  Death 497  ss. 

Despise 499  ss. 

Flesh  and  blood 383. 

Hebraisms... 499.  501. 

Honor  and  honoro 340. 

Mabog 525. 

Methodists 115. 

Messengers  of  Satan ....  499. 

Offend 499ss. 

Parable 215  s. 

Peshito 427. 

Prophet 30.53.82. 

Saba 526. 

Scandalize 499ss. 

Seculum 380. 

Si^cle ih. 

Taste  of  Death 496  ss. 


548 


INDEX  III. 


AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS  QUOTED. 


Abarbanel^  Praefatio  in  Josuam  ;  82. 
AbuipharagiuSi  Chronicon  Syriacum ; 
204. 

'    Historia       Dynastia- 

rum  ;  505.  518  s- 

Acta  Sanctorum  Martyrum;  see  As- 

seman,  S.  E. 
Adler,  Norinulla  Matt,  et  Marci  enun- 

ciata  ex  indole  linguae   Syriacae 

explicata  ;  498. 
.Mian,  de  Nat-  Animal. ;  337. 
.^chines.  Opera ;  185. 
Mberli,  Observationes  ;  367. 
American  Encyclopedia ;  520. 
AquUa,  Greek  Version  ;   363.  411. 
Arnold,  Hist.  Eccles.  et  Haeres. ;  278. 
Asseman,  J.  S.,  Bibliotheca  Orienta- 

lis ;  487    494.  497-  499.  505.  516. 

518  s.  521  524.  529. 
r—  S.    £.,    Acta    Sanctorum 

Martyrum;  516.521.  526. 
Atliantsius,  Synopsis  S.  S. ;  36. 
Athenaeus,  Deipnos.  ;  309. 
AttUy  Commentary ;  338. 
Au^tisti,  Einleitung  ins  A.  T. ;  12- 

German  Version  of  the  Bi- 
ble ;  515. 

uiugustine.  Opera ;  33S. 

de  Doctr-  Christ. ;  7- 

Barhebraeus,  see  Abulpharagius. 
Barre,  de  La ;  130. 
Bartolocci,  Bibliotheca  Rabbinica  ;  29. 
Basnage,  Histoire  des  Juifs ;  62. 
Baiier,  Abridgment :  12 


Baumgarten,  see   Hallischer    BMio' 

thek. 
Bava  Bathra,  see  Talmud. 
Bayer  or  Baier,  T.  &.,  Hist.  Osro6hna 

et  Edessena  ;  517. 
Bayle,  Diction naire  ;   122.  149. 
Beavsobre,  Histoire  critique  de  Manl- 

ch^e  ;  277.  354  521. 
Bengd,  Gnomon  Nov.  Test.  ;    177- 

198  204.  , 

Bertholdt,  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften 

des  A.  und  N.  Test  ;  12.  43  49. 

507 

Daniel;  11. 

r-  Theological  Journal ;  530. 

Bibliotheca  Orieutalis,  see  AsseTnan, 

J.  S. 
Bignon,  Jerome ;  121. 
Bochart,  Sam.,  Geogr.  Sacra ;  144  as. 

149.  524. 

Hierozoicon ;        129. 

134.  150  ss  157. 

Phaleg,  119  s.  149. 

Bomberg,  Daniel ;  88. , 

Bos,  Exercitat   Phil.  ;  344.  346  362. 

369.  375. 
Bossuet,  9. 
Bourdelat ;  125  s. 
Brentz,  Jo.,  Esaias  commentariis  ev 

plicatus;  467. 
Brucker,  Hist    Crit.   Philosoph  ;  62. 

278  s.  283.  295.  298  s    300    303  s. 

307.  309  s.  315.  354.  37a  383. 387  s 

389.  397 


M4 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORb  AND  BOOKS  QUOTED. 


Bruns,  86  s  (see  KenriicoU-,)  520. 

Brynneus ;  167. 

Bilsching,  Geography  ;  525.  Descript. 

of  Asia ;   ib. 
Buxlorf,   Lexicon     Chald.      Talmud. 

Rabbin   ;   35  94  491  498  499- 

J.,  Tiberias ;  29  93, 

Ca/met,  Com mentaire;  472 
Calovius,  Biblia  Mlustrata  ;  468. 
Calvin,  Commentarii  in  lesaiam  pro- 

phetam  :  466. 
Camercr,  Tii6ologischen    und  kritis- 

chen  Versuchen  ;   39. 
Cameron,  John ;  1 12. 
Cap  I,  Commentt.  in  V  T  ;  469. 
Carpsoo,  Introiiuctio  in  V  T  ;    10. 

Crit.  "^acr.  ;  356. 

Cassiodorus ;  7. 

Castalio,  B'blia,  cum  annotatt.  ;  467. 

Casiell,    Lexicon   Heptagl. ;  35.  491. 

510.  532. 
Cdlar'ms,  Geograph  Ant  ;  524. 
ChriMian  Observer ;   104. 
Chronicon  Syriacum,  see   Abulphara- 

gius 
Chrifsostem,  Opera  ;  351. 
Cicero,  Orator;  309 

proQuintio;   340 

pro  Roscio  Araerino  ;  340 

Epistt  ;  340 

de  Nat.  Deer  ;  398. 

Clarius;  468 

Clement    of    Alexandria,     Stromata ; 

282  288  300  305  s  312  317  319. 

321   345  s.  395 
Chricus ;  see  Le  Clerc. 
Cofrei'S,  Opera;  251   469  491. 

Lexicon  H*br  ;  491- 

Compton,  Blshftp  ;    122. 

C'>ncil.  C  rlhas  ;  31. 

Conversations-Lexicon ;   520. 

Cotta;  34 

Cyprian,  Opera  ;   287. 

Oyril,  Opera ;  35 

Dalhe,  PsaUer  Syriac  ;  515- 

^de    ratione    consensus    Vers. 

Chald.  et  Syr.  Prov.  Sol. ;  607. 
r  edition  of  Walton's  Prolegg. ;  8. 


De  Dieu,  Louis,  Crit,  Sacra  ;  SOU. 
Animadvers.    in    V 

T.;  467  s. 
Demosthenes,  Opera ;  184. 

de  Corona  ;  340. 

Dempster,  Thom.ns ;  110 

De  Wette,  Lehrbrech  der  hist-  krit. 

Einleit.  in  die  Bibel ;  22.  29  43. 
German  Version    of    the 

Bible;  515. 

Archaologie  ;  49.  64. 

Deyling,  Obss.  Sacr.  ;  328.  333.  3&S 

s.  384. 
Dietelmaier,  Hist,    dogmatis   de  de- 

scensu  Christi  ad  inferos  ;   160. 
Doddwell,  Diss,  in  Irenaeum  ;  384. 
Doederlein,    Instit.    Christ.    Theol; 

211. 
Drilk,  Dissert,  de  ratione  hist.  Cano- 

nis  scribendae  ;  34  s. 
Drvsius,  Parallela  Sacra ;   103. 
Da  Bosr,  Pierre,  109.  122.  132  s. 
Du  Fresne,  Glossarium  ;  34. 
Eichhorn^  J.   G.,   Einleitung  ins  A. 

T.  ;  10  s.  19.  22.  23.  26.  29.  30.  43. 

48  s.  63.  70  s.  88  s.  96.  494.  505. 

509. 
Einl.  in  die  Apokryphischen 

Bucher  des  A.  T.  ;  12. 

Einl.  ins.  N.  T. ;  13. 

edit,    of    Simonis'    Hebr. 

Lexicon ;  30. 
AUgemeine  Bibliothek ;  30. 

485.  533. 
Repertorium;    19.    47.  48. 

509. 
— Historische     Untersuchung 

tiber  den  Kanon  des  A.  T.  ;  17— 

104. 
Eisner,  Obss.  sacrae;   182.  300.  362. 

364.  340. 
Ephrem  Syrus,  Opera ;  487.  508.  516. 

522  527. 
Commentary ;      497. 

527  s. 
Epiphanius,  Haereses  ;  35,  281.  388. 
Ernesti,  Instit.  Interp.  ;  381.  391. 
N.  th.  BibL  ;  318, 333.  336. 


NDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AXU  BOOKS  QUOTED. 


545 


IJmesli,  Xenophont.  Memorab. ;  342. 

Opuscula  Oratoria ;  320: 

Eunapius,  JEdes]  308. 

Eusebius,   Hist-    Eccl.  ;    67     84.   86. 

284  s.  291.  304  s. 
Fraep.    Evangel-;    41.   82. 


95. 


^TvoiuYHfAsLTA  ;  447. 


Fabriciiis,  Codex  Pseudepigr.  V.  T. ; 

36. 
Fessel,  Adv.  SS. ;  200. 
Forerius,  Comment,  in  Esaiam  ;  467. 
FoTster,  J  /?.,  Epistolae  ad  J.  D.  Mi- 

cbaelem  ;  148. 
Flick,  de  Cura  vet.  eccl.  circa  Cano- 

nem  ;  34. 
Gaab,  J.  F.,  Ueber  die  Litteralur  der 

Christ  Syrer ;  503. 
Geier,  Comment,  in  Psalmos  ;  357. 
GeUius;  310. 
Gesenius,  Gescljichte  der  Hebr.  Spra- 

che  und  Schrift ;  22  s. 
Hebraish-Deutsches  Hand- 

worterbuch;  30.  491. 
Commentar   fiber  lesaias; 


491.  507.  515. 

Lehrgebiiude    der    Hebr. 

Spr. ;  494. 

Gibbs,  Translation  of  Gesenius'  He- 
brew Lexicon ;  30. 

Gill,  Commentary  on  tlie  Bible ; 
498. 

Glass,  Philologia  Sacra ;  189. 

Gray,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  Apocrypha  ;  14. 

Gregory,  Translation  of  Lowth's  Prje- 
lecttones  ;  22. 

Grolius,  Annotationes  ;  348.  352. 
362  SS.  369.  375-  377.  381  s.  384. 
467. 

Illtnlein,  Manual ;  13. 

Hallischtr  Bibliolheki  509. 

Hammond,  Annotations  on  the  N.  T. ; 
277. 

Dissert.  dc-Episcopatu;  277. 

Harwood,  Introd.  to  the  N.  T.  ;  383. 

Hasse,  Aussichten  -,11. 


Hassencamp,  Anraerkk.  tiber  die  letz- 

ten  Paragraphen  des  H.  Hofr.  Mi- 

chaelis  Einleit.  ins  N.  T.  ;  523. 
Hazercamp,  edition  of  Josephus  ;  61. 

73.  76  SS. 
Heidegger,  Enchiridion ;  7. 
edition  of  Walton's  Appa- 
ratus ;  8. 
Heliodorus,  iEthiopica ;  338. 
Herder,  Briefe  das  Studium  der  The- 

ologie  betrefFend  ;  10. 
Geist  der  Hebr.  Poesie ;  10. 

189. 
Hess,    Ueber    die    Lehren,  Thaten, 

und  Schicksale  unsers  Herrn ;  182. 

201. 
Heumann,  Explic.  libr.  N.  T. ;  359* 

384. 
Historia  Dynastiarum,  see  Abulpha- 

ragius. 
Uody.  de  Bibliorum  Text.  Origina- 

lib.  ;  47. 
Hoffmann,     Grammat.     Syr. ;    493. 

494.  513.  527.  529.  531  s. 
Geschichte  der  Syr.  Litte- 

ratur;  530. 
Hoogeveen,    Doctrina    Partic.    Grae- 

car.  ;  194. 
Horace,  Satires  ;  329. 
Home,  Introduction  to  the   Critical 

Study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  14. 

22  s.  49.  102. 
Hornemann,  de  Canone  Philonis;  41 

s.  50  52.  54  s. 
HoUinger,    Thesaurus   Philologicus ; 

8.35. 
Houbigant,  Bibl.  Heb.  cum  not.  crit. 

et  vers.  Lat. ;  472. 
Hudson,  edit,  of  Josephus  ;    61.67. 

76  ss. 
Huet,  Origeniana  ;  128.  136. 
Hug,  Einleitung  in  die  Schriften  des 

N.  T.  ;  13. 
Irenaens,  adv.  Haereses  ;   281.  290. 

305.  386  s. 
Isocrates,  Opera ;  320. 
Jacob  of  Edessa ;  506. 


09 


54ti 


,.  IJNOJJX  Oi;  AXJTHUKi5>  AiSt>  BOOKS  UDOTliO. 


John,   Einleitung  in    die  g&ttlichen 

Bacher  des  A.  B. ;  lis.  22  ss.  .26. 

43.49. 

Arcbaeologia  BibI, ;  6*2. 

Jamhlichus,  de  Myster.  ^Egypt. ;  299. 
Jerome,  Latin  Version  ;  431  s. 
de    Scriptor.    Eccles.  ;    281. 

372. 

Opera  ;  36.  61  90  6. 

Jocher,  Lexicon  ;  526. 

Jonathan,  Btn   Vzziel,  Targinn  ;  412 

ss. 
Jonsius,    de    Scriptor.    Hist.    Phil.  ; 

322. 
Joseplms,  deBello  Jud.  ;  29.60.  172. 

175.290  296  334  s 
Antiqq.  Jud.;    29.   61.69. 

73.  76  ss.  200.  288.  290.  295  s.  300. 

320  s. 


• contra  Ap. ;  31.  45.  65.  76. 

77  ss. 
Journal  des  Sgavans ;  506. 
Justin  Martijr,  Apology  ;  291. 
Keil,  C.  A.  T„  Opuscula  Academica; 

171.  175. 
Kennicolt,  Dissert.  General. ;  86s. 
Kirsch,  edition  of  the  Syriac  Penta- 
teuch ;  507. 

Syriac  Chrestoinathy  ;  533. 

Knapp,  edition  of  the  N.  T. ;  103. 
Knites,   Gustai\,   Syriac   Chrestoma- 

thy ;  520, 533. 
Koppe,  J.  B.,  Nov.  Test. ;  30.  171. 
Krebs,  Observatt.  in  N.  T. ;  185.  320. 

336.  341  s.  348. 
Coranientar.    ad    dec.    Rom. 

pro  Jud. ;  288.  330.  340.  343. 
Kypke,  Observatt.  in  N.    T-  ;    193. 

336. 
Lanigan,  Institutiones  Biblicae  :  14. 
Lardner,  Supplement  to  Credibil.  of 

Gosp.  Hist.;  34.281.355. 
ie  Clerc,  Veteris  Testament!  prophe- 

tae  ;  472. 
Xe  Couteur ;  132. 
tee,  Professor  S.,  Hebr.  Grammar; 

533  s. 


Leo,   Christopher,  Translation  of  Ge 

senius'  Hebr.  Lexicon  ;  30. 
Leusden,  Philologus  Hebraeus  ;  8. 
Lighljoot,  Horae  Hebr. ;  174.  203. 
Locke,  on  the  N.  T.  epistles;  379. 
Loesntr,  Obss.  in  N .  T. ;  185. 
Lokman,  Fables :  216. 
Lowth,  Praelectiones  ;  10.  22. 

Translation  of  Isaiah  ;  472. 

Luther,  German  Version  ;  465.  512. 

Larger  Catechism  ;  184. 

BLiius,   J.  IL,   Abridgment    of  Bo 

chart's  Hieroz. ;  157. 
M  Uc-Brun,  Geograph.  ;  525. 
Maagey,  edition  of  Philo;  51. 
Markland^  Notes  on  Lysias;  301.  337. 

381. 
Marsh,   Bishop,  Translation   of  Mi- 

chaelis'  Einleitung  ins  N.  T.;  12  s. 

496.  502.  504.  522. 
Masius,  Joshua  illustratus  ;  357. 
Massuet,  Diss,  in  Irenaeum  ;  305. 
Melavxthon,  Opera  ;  348. 
Melito,  Epistle  to  Onesimus  ;  84. 
.\ieuschen,   Nov.  Test,  ex  Talmude, 

&c.  iliustratum  ;  62. 
Meusel,  Comment,  in  Esaiam  prophe* 

tam;  467. 
Michnelis,  J.   D.    Einleitung  in    die 

gottl.  Schriften  des  A.  B.  ;  11.  23. 

505. 
Kinleitung   ins    JN. 

T.  ;  12.   104.  281.  296.  303.  367. 

373.  377  s.  392.  496.  5()2.  504.  522. 
edit,    of     Lowth's 

Praelectiones;  22. 
— '■ SpecilegiumGeogr. 


Ht  br.  exterae  ;  148.  524- 
'- German  Version  of 


the  Bible  ;  506.  514. 
Arabic  Chrestoma- 


thy ;  498. 


526. 


525  532. 


de  Syria  Sabaea  ; 

Lexicon  Syriacum ; 

Abhandlung    von 


INDEX  OP  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS  QUOTED. 


541 


♦3er    Syrischen    Sprache ;    481 — 

534. 
JVfichadis,  J.  D.  Gramraatica  Syria- 

ca;  494.531. 
Syrische     Chresto- 

mathie  ;   483.  494.  500.  617.  521. 

532. 
Supplementa     ad 


Lex.  Hebr. ;  490. 
Commentationes  ; 


311.351.526. 

Crit.     Collegium 

fiber  die  drey  wichtigsten  Fsalmen 
von  Christo  ;  186.  505. 

Program  ma,    uber 


die   Lxx.  Dollmetscher;  499. 

Cuiae  in  Vers.  Sy- 


riac.  Actuum  Apost.  ;  504. 
Beurtheilung    der 


Mittel,  die   Hebr.  Spr.  zu  verste- 
hen;  485.511. 

Dissert,    de  j^-^q'q 

Chaldaeorum ;  356. 

Lumina  Syriacapro 

illustr.  Hebr.  ;  495. 

1 edit,    of  the   He- 


brew Bible  ;  471. 
Middleton,  Bishop,    Doctrine  of  the 

Greek  Article  ;  181. 
Morin,  Stephen ;  109.  132.  138. 
MorUy,  George,  121. 
Miische,  Bibelfreund ;  184. 
ItfoiAetm,  Instil utt.  Hist    Eccl.  raaj.; 

277.  279. 282  ss.  290  Q»3  310.318 

354.  365  s.  372.  394.  397. 
,  Diss.  ad.  H.  E.  pertinent.; 


278. 


283  529. 


392 


Instit    H  E.  aut.  et  rec. ; 
-,   Commentary ;  316  s.  378. 


de  rebus  Christ,  ante  Con- 


stant •,  315. 
Milnchhausen,  5l9  s. 
Monster;  467. 
M&nthinge,  Kurtze  Anm.  zu  dett  Psal- 

iaien:  189.  199. 


CEcolampaiHus,  Hypomnematain  Esa- 

iam;  467. 
Opilz,  Syriasmus,  531. 
Origen,  contra  Celsum  ;  61.  290. 312. 

Opera;  37.  8&s. 

Owen,  Modes  of  Quotation ;  104* 
Paulus,  Reperiorium  ;  43.  603.  533. 
'  Commentar  Uber  das  N.  T.  t 

499. 
Philostratm,    Vita   Apollon.    Tyan.-; 

309.    • 
Plato,  Opera ;  195. 
I'liny,  Hist.  Nat.;  308.310. 
Pococke,  edit,  of  Abulpharagius'  Hist*. 

Dynast. ;  .518. 
Polyhius;  289. 
Porphyry,  Vila  Plotini;  308. 
Pott,    Sylloge  Commentt.   TheolJ.', 

495. 
Prideaux,  Connexion;  29.47.204. 
Pseuilo-Jo  alhan,  Targum,  74. 
Qu  tremtre,  Syriac  *  exicon ;  532. 
Raphe!,  Annott.  in  N  T.  ex  Xenoph. ; 

182.  194. 

Annott.  in  N  T.;ex Ariano ;  194. 

Reland,  Palaestiiia  illustrata  ;  359. 
Perry,  Key  to  the  N.  T.  ;  14  s. 
Philo,   Opera;    41s.   172.   193.  296- 

298  s.  300  336. 

de  Vita  Contempl. ;  44  s. 

de  Monarchia  ;  53. 

de  Legibus  special.  ;  53  s. 

Q,uis  rerum  divin.  haeres,  sit ; 

54  57.  58. 

de  Praemiis;  54. 

AUegor. ;  54.  55. 

de  Gigant  ;  54.  57. 

de  Plant  Noe ;  55.  56.  57. 

de  congressu    quaer.    erudit. 

gratia ;  55  57. 

de  Vita  Mosis ;  55. 

de  Mundi  Opif  ;  55. 

de  migrat  Abrah  ;  55.  67.  5&. 

Resipuit  Noe ;  55. 

de  Somniis ;  55.  56  58. 

de  eo  quod  Deus  sit  inamutab. ; 


55.  .5P. 


548 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  A'ND  BOOKS  QLOTED. 


Philo,  de  Confus.  lingg. ;  55.  CC  57. 

58. 
..  de  Temulent. ;  55- 

de  Mutat  Norn  ;  56  57.  5S. 

de  Cherub. ;  56. 

de  Profugis ;  56.  58. 

de  Agricult. ;  57. 

1 Quod  a  Deo  mittitur  somnia  ; 

57.  58. 
de  Ebrietate  ;  57. 


Schinigen,  Horae  Hebr. ;  332. 
Schoder,  F.  J.,  Specim.   Hieroz.,  ex 

Boch. ;  157  s. 
Sfhroeckh,  Hist.  Eccles.;  278.  353. 
S(:hulle7is.  Proverbia  Salom. ;  345. 

Gram.  Arab.;  498. 

Segrais;  159. 
S'tm/er,  Apparatus ;  10. 
. Hist,  dogmat.  fidei;  278.  355. 


jReus5,  Opuscula ;  197. 

Rivet,  Andrew;   113.  * 

Jioos,  Lehre  and  Lebensgesch.  J.  C. ; 

178, 
Rosenmulkr,  E.  F.  C,  Scholia  in  V. 

T.;  11.515. 

Handbuch  fiir  die  Lit- 

teratur  der  bibl  Kritik  undExegese  ; 

49.  499. 509. 
edit,  of  Lovvth's  Praelec- 


tiones;  22. 


roz- ;  157. 


edit,  of  Bochart's  Hie- 


J.  G-,  Historia  Interpre- 


387. 


Comment.  Hist,  de  ant.  Chi 


tationis;  530. 
Buffin,  Expositio  Symbol i ;  35. 
Saadias,  Arabic  Version;  432  ss. 
Sanchoniathon  ;  147. 
Sanctius,    Comment,   in    prophetas; 

467. 
Sarrau,  Claude;  107.  121. 
Saumaise;  121.  124. 
Schaaf,    Lexicon  Syriacum   Concor- 

dantiale;  532. 
Scheid,  Diss,  ad  Cant.  Hiskiae  ;  375. 
Scheffer,  J.,  159. 
Schmid,    C.   Fr.,    Hist,  et  Vindicat. 

Canonis ;  46.  86. 
Enarratio  sententiae  Flavii 

Josephii  de  libris  V.  T. ;  75. 
Schmidt,  J.  C,  Einleitung  ins  N.  T.  ; 

13. 
Schmid,   Seb.,    Commentarius    super 

iliustres  prophetias  lesaiae  ;  469. 
Schmiicker,    Translation    of    Storr's 

Theology;  39. 
^chnurrer,    Animad.  ad  qiiaed.  loc 

P.'salmoi'. :  195. 


Statu  ;  303.  350.  372.  394.  397.  399. 

— Paraph.   Gosp.  of  St.   John  ; 

354.  362. 

Select.  Capita  H.  E. ;  278. 397. 

Abhandlung  vonfreyer  Unter- 

tersuchung  des  Kanons;  35.  37. 
Shlegel,  Parallela  Sacra ;  104 
Simon.  Hist.  Critique  ;  8.  9  61   147. 

Reponse  aux  Sentt.  Theol.  de 

Hollande,  163. 
Simonis,  Lex.  Hebr  ;  30. 
Sionita,  Gabriel ;  508  s. 
Sijtus  Sinensis,  Bibliotheca  Sancta: 

7.    '  * 

Socrates,  Hist  EccL  ;  34  321 
Spittler,   de  usu    versionis  Alexand. 

apud  Josephum  ;  66.  75. 
Spizelius,  InfeVix  Literatus;  108.  110. 

122. 
Stesichorus ;  224.  226- 
Storr,  G   C ,  Obss.   Gram. ;  173.  179. 
181.  185   190  ss.  195.  200  211. 

Opusc     Academ.  ;      176.    193. 

198.  2O2.'^05  207  212 

Biblical  Theology ;  39  102. 

Ueber  die  eilteste  Eintheilung 

der  BUcher  des  A.  B. ;  43. 
Slroth,  Uebersetzung  des  Eusebius; 

84.  87. 
Stuart,  Moses,  Passages  cited  from  the 
O.  T.  by  the  writers  of  the  N.  T.  : 
102. 
Suetonius,  Vespasian ;  175. 

Augustus ;  340. 

Suicer,  Thesaurus  Ecclesiasticus  ;  34. 

Suidas;  34  s. 

Snrenhwius.Bi^hti  YidrsthXetyne: :  104. 


INDEX  or  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS  t^UOTED. 


Mi) 


6mft,  Works ;  498. 

Stfmmaehtcs,  Greek  Version ;  363.  411 . 

Sj/nodus  Laodic. ;  34. 

Tacit  s,  Historiae  ;  172.  175. 

Gerraania  ;  380. 

Talmud,  Bava  Bathra,  94. 

Sanhedrin,  62. 

Midrash  Koheleth  ;  498. 

Tcrtvllian,  de  Praescrip.  adv    Haer. ; 

291  306  385  397. 
adv  Valentinianos  ;  387  s. 


396 


adv  Hermog. ;  397- 


Thalemann,  C.  G.,  Diss,  de  doctr  Pau- 
li  Judaica,  non  Graeca  ;   390. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  ;  529 

Theodoret,  Opera  ;  81  322. 

Tfieodotion,  Greek  Version  ;  179. 187. 
411. 

Thomasius,  J,  de  Originibus  Hisl. 
Phil  etEccles. ;  277. 

Tobler,  Gedanken  und  Antworten 
zur  Ehre  J.  C.  und  seines  Reichs; 
297. 

Turner,  S.  H.,  and  W.  R  WhitUngliam, 
Translation  of  Jahn's  Einleit  ins 
A.  T  ;  22  ss-  26.  43.  49. 

Ttjcfiscn,  0.  G.,  Elementale  Syria- 
cum;  533. 

Universal  History,  (German  Transla- 
tion of);  517. 

Upham,  Translation  of  Jahn's  Ar- 
chaeologia ;  62. 

Valenus,  Notes  on  Euseb  Hist  Eccl. ; 
88 

Varenius,  Commentt  in  Esaiam ;  469. 

Voter,  Commentar  tlber  den  Penta- 
teuch ;  11. 

Vmema,  Commentt.  ad  Psalmos ;  375. 


Veron;  115  s. 
Vetahlus;Am 
Viczti,  Abridgment  of  the  Hierozoi- 

con  of  Bocliart;  157. 
Virgil,  ^neid  ;   382.  488. 
Vitringa,  Obss.  sacr.  ;  305. 
Cominentary     on    Isaiah  ; 

318.  375.  470. 
Vorstius,  de  Hebraismis  N.  T. ;  501. 
Vossius ;  9. 

JValch,  Hist,  of  Heresies  ;  278. 
Walton,     Prolegomena     ad     Polyg. 

Lond. ;  8.  see  Heidepger,  Dathe. 
Wallher,  Officina  Biblica  ;  7. 
Walt,   Bibliotheca    Britannica;   487. 

517. 
Wets!ein,]Sov.  Test.;  171.  174.   185. 

496. 
Whiston,  Authentic  Records ;  47. 
WliitlhiirJiam,   W.  R.  and  i>.  H.    Tur- 
ner, Translation  of  Jahn's  Einleit. 

ins  A.  T. ;  22  ss.  26.  43.  49. 
Winckdmann  ;  520. 
Witsius,  Miscell.  sacr.  ;  357. 
Wolf,  Curae ;  320.  322.  332.  336.  339. 

369.  380.  382. 
Wall,  Christ.,  edition  of  Blackwall's 

sacred  Classics ;   203. 
Woods,  Lecture  on  Quotations  of  the 

0.  T. ;  104. 
Xcnophon,  Cyrop. ;  343. 

Memorab.  ;  .344. 

Zohar;  498. 

Zonaras  ;  34. 

Zoroaster;  147. 

Zurich  Library ;    30  s.  42   44    50  s^ 

69. 
Ziiitt^le,  Contemplationes  Isaiae  pro 

petae;  466. 


r>r>(> 


INDEX  IV 


GENERAL  INDEX  OF  MATTERS. 


Abarbanel,  Commentary  of,  when 
composed,  462.  lis  character,  462 
—464. 
Abulpharagius,  Gre^^ory,  account  of 
him  and  of  his  writings,  518  s. 
.Why  the  time  when  he  lived  was 
peculiarly  interesting,  519.  The 
valuable  libraries  from  which  he 
obtained  the  materials  of  his  His- 
tory, it.  The  three  parts  of  which 
it  consists,  518.  His  assertion,  in 
regard  to  the  Syriac  Version  of  the 
Old  Testament.  505.  When  and 
why  he  composed  an  abridgment 
of  his  History,  in  Arabic,  ib.  The 
time  occupied  in  making  this 
abridgmefit,  ib.  The  manuscript 
copy  of  the  original  work,  in  the 
Vatican,  used  by  Asseman,  519. 
Why  a  copy  of  it  for  the  Universi- 
ty of  Gottingen,  proposed  by  Ba- 
ron von  IMtinchhaussen,  was  not 
obtained,  519,  520.  The  printing 
of  the  entire  work  proposed  by 
Prof.  Bruns,  520.  Where  he  made 
his  MS.  copy  of  the  work,  ib.  (See 
Bruns.)  Edw.  Pococke's  edition 
of  the  Arabic  abridgment,  518. 
See  Pococke. 

Mneas,  landing  of,  in  Italy,  159  s. 

Aeons,  of  the  Gnostics,  waiters  who 
treat  of  them,  354. 

Atexandtr.  not  to  be  classed  among 


heretics,  and  why,  289.     Case  of, 
considerec^,  349, 

Alexandrian  Christians,  their  admira- 
tion of  the  Apocrypha,  31.  33. 

Alexandrian  Version ;  See  Septua- 
gint. 

Amos,  his  prophecy  ix.  11  s.  consider- 
ed, 199.  200.     See  Miuor  Prophets. 

Angels,  ministry  of,  268.  Whether 
they  were  worshipped  by  the  Es- 
se nes,  355.  356. 

Aniiochus  Epiphanes,  his  intolerant 
edict,  41. 

Apamaea,  167. 

Apoca.ypse,  difference  of  its  style 
from  that  of  the  other  writings  of 
St.  John,  373. 

Apocalypse  of  Elijah,  cited  by  St- 
Paul,  31. 

Apocrypha,  when  added  to  the  Greek 
Bible,  32      Some  of  them,  in  a 
translation,  very  early  in  the  hands 
of  the  Egyptian  Jews,  48.     Why 
translated   into  Latin  at  an   early 
period,  33.     Cited  by  St  Paul,  31. 
JNot  cited    by    Philo,    59-     What 
books  are  to  be  so  called,  in  the 
opinion  of  Josephus,  75.     Not  al- 
lowed to  be  read  in  public,  35. 
Canonical  authority   attributed  to 
them  by  Councils,  33. 
Apocryphal,  meaning  of,  36  s. 
Apostles,  make  a  distinction  between 


GEiSBRAL   IjSDEX   UF   MATTEKfii. 


551 


,  Canonical  and  Apocryphal  writ- 
ings, 32.    Unlearned  men,  389. 

Apostolic  Fathers,  and  the  Apostles 
atid  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  repre- 
sented as  making-  no  distinction 
between  various  pseudepi^raphs, 
and  the  canonical  books  of  the  O- 
T.,3!. 

Aquila,  character  of  his  Version  of 
Isaiah,  411  s. 

Arabic  Latr^uage,  the  vernacular  lan- 
guage of  some  Jews  undrr  the  Sa- 
racens, 486.  Compared  wiih  the 
Hebrew,  493.  Its  illustrations  of 
Hebrew,  fewer  than  those  derived 
from  the  Syriac,  495.  Used  in  il- 
lustrating the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament,  498. 

Versions,    why    useful,    510. 

Necessary  at  an  early  date,  ib. 

Fersiom  of  the  Psalms,  notice 

of,  509. 

Version  of  the  Prophets,  in  the 

London  and  Paris  Polyglots,  found- 
ed on  the  Alexandrian,  439. 

Fersion  of  Job,   made  from 

the  Syriac,  509. 

Version  of  Saadins,  notice  of, 


434.  Follows  Jewish  interpreta- 
tions, 433.  Its  characteristics, 
434  ss. 

Aramaean  Language,  when  spoken 
by  Jews,  as  their  vernacular  lan- 
guage, 495.  Spoken  by  Christ  and 
the  Apostles,  497.  iS early  allied  to 
Hebrew,  493.  Its  influence  on 
Hebrew,  495. 

Arisieas,  his  account  of  the  Septua- 
gint  Version,  47  s-  See  Septua- 
gint. 

ArnoUi,  his  opinion  respecting  the 
Gnostics,  278. 

Arlaxerxes  Longimanus,  why  Jose- 
phus  closes  the  Canon  of  the  O. 
T.  with  his  reign,  68. 

Asseman,  J.  S.,  bis  Oriental  Library 
commended,  487,  516.  521. 

' S.  E.,  his  Acts  of  the  Mar- 


tyrs valuable,  516.    His  translation 
of  Ephrem  censured,  ib. 

Assumption  of  Moses  cited  by  St. 
Jude,  31. 

Auguti,  J.  C.  W.,  character  of  his 
Handbuch  des  A.  T.,  474.  Of  his 
translation  of  Isaiah,  476. 

Aufiustine,  cliaracter  ol  bis  Doctrina 
Christiana,  7. 

Auririllius,  character  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter of  Isaiah,  479. 

AniheAicily,  of  the  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  21  ss.  Evidences  of  it, 
24  s. 

Bnmbyce  ;  See  Mabog. 

Barhebraeus,  Gregory,  see  Ahulpharu- 
gius. 

BarucA,  held  a  place  in  the  Canon  of 
Origen,  88. 

B>uer,  G.  C,  notice  of  his  Scholia, 
474. 

Bava  Bathra,  see  Talmud. 

Bayle,  blunders  of,  relative  to  Bo- 
chart,  122  149. 

Bible,  Introductions  to ;  See  Intro- 
ductions^ 

Versions  of;  See  Arabic,  Sy- 
riac, &c. 

Polyglot :  See  Polyglot. 

Bochart,  his  birth,  110.  Ancestry, 
ih  Education  ilO  S5.  Character, 
140.  Acquirements,  141  Person, 
139.  Controversy  with  De  la 
Barre,  130  s.  Correspondence 
with  Morley,  121  s.  Dispute  with 
Veron,  115  ss.  Journey  to  Swe- 
den, 124.  Visit  to  England,  113. 
Settles  at  Caen,  114.  Publishes 
his  Sacred  Geography,  119  s.  In- 
vited to  Ley  den,  121.  Sermons 
on  Genesis,  118  s.  Minor  Writ- 
ings, 136.  158  ss.  Plan  of  a  Scrip- 
ture Natural  History,  158.  Merits 
as  a  writer,  160  ss.  Ditliculties 
caused  by  the  death  and  removal 
of  his  colleagues,  132  s.  His  death, 
137  s. 

Bombcrg,  Daniel,  first  introduced  the 


552 


GENERAL  INDEX  OF  MATTERS. 


present  division  of  the  Books  of 
Scripture,   in    his   edition   of  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  88. 
Bossuel^  suppresses  S'raon's  History 

of  the  Old  Testament,  t). 
JBourdelal,    physician    to    Christina, 

Queen  of  Sweden,  125  s. 
Brucker,  his  theory  in  regard   to  the 
Gnostics,  279      His  definition  of 
their  JEom,  354 
Brum,  his  discoveryof  the  Chronicle 
of  Barhebraeus  in  the  Oxford  Li- 
brary, 520.     His   publication  of  a 
specimen  of  it,  ib.     And  proposed 
edition  of  the  entire  work,  j6 
Brynaem,  corrects  errors  of  Bochart, 

167. 
BUsching,  his  use  of  Syriac  works  in 
his  De-i-ription  of  Asia,  525.     His 
Geography  translated  into  English, 
ib 
Cam,  literary  society  and  academy 

of,  129. 
Calmet,  notice  of  his  Commentary, 

472. 
Calvin,  character  of  his  Commentary 

on  Isaiah,  4t)G  s. 
Canon,  the  acceptation  of  the  word 
among  early  Ecclesiastical  Writers, 
34  s.  37  Consequences  resulting 
from  its  unsettled  meaning,  37. 
Why  the  word  ought  not  to  have 
been  used  in  reference  to  the  O. 
T-,  36.  Determination  of  its  mean- 
ing, 38  s.  Closed  by  the  Jews  un- 
der Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  68. 
Of  what  it  consisted  in  the  time  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles,  95  Settled 
after  the  Babylonian  Captivity, 
98  Contains  the  books  of  our  pre- 
sent Bibles,  96.  The  Jews  of  Egypt 
are  sources  of  information  concern- 
it,  42  s.  The  Jews  of  Palestine 
also,  60  ss.  Of  the  Egyptian  and 
Palestine  Canon  in  general,  39  s. 
Arc  one  and  the  same,  41  ss. 
Whence  this  results,  42.  The  Ca- 
non of  Philo.  59.     That  of  the  Sad- 


duceesand  Samaritans,  60  s  That 
oftheTherapcutae,  ib.  The  Epistle 
of  J«  remiah  never  a  part  of  it,  89. 
See  Josephus,  Origen,  ^1elito,  Philo. 

Canonical,  meaning  of  the  word,  34. 
The  same  as  inspired,  35. 

Carpsov,  character  of  his  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament,  10. 

Castelt,  his  Hebrew  Lexicon  the  best 
extant,  491.  His  Chalnee  Lexicont 
when  and  where  published,  532. 
Aided  in  its  execution  by  Bishop 
Beveridge,  ib.   See  Michaelis,  J.  D. 

Celene  or  A)  amaea,  167. 

Cellarius,  his  views  more  correct  than 
those  of  Bochart,  524.  Less  valued 
than  Bochart,  in  Germany,  ib. 

Chaldaisms,  abound  in  Jeremiah  and 
Ezechie!,21. 

Chaldee  Language,  our  reading  in  it 
limited,  489.  When  the  authors, 
extant  in  it,  wrote,  ib.  How  foreign 
words  were  introduced  into  it,  ib- 
More  used  than  Syriac,  in  illustra- 
ting Hebrew,  485. 

Charenton,  decree  of  the  Synod  of. 
130. 

Chrestomalhies,  Syriac,  notices  of  the 
best,  532  s. 

Christ,  his  sutFerings  before  he  enter- 
ed on  his  kingdom,  much  insisted 
on  by  himself  and  his  apostles,  176 
— 178.  In  what  respect  he  suc- 
ceeded to  David's  place,  198.  His 
proof  of  the  Resurrection,  62.  His 
discourse  on  pride  and  offending, 
502.  The  passage  of  Isaiah  xxv. 
6 — 8.  interpreted  of  him,  513  s. 
His  vernacular  language,  497.  See 
Churrh  of  Christ. 

Christians;  See  Egyptian, 

Chronicles,  the  two  books  were  only 
one  at  first,  87.  Closed  the  Canon 
of  the  O.  T.,  70.  They  are  not 
mentioned  by  Philo,  58.  No  di- 
rect quotation  from  them  in  the 
N.  T.,  .102.  Are  used  by  Josephus, 
80.     Are  found  in    the  Canon  of 


GENERAL  INDEX  OF  MATTERS. 


553 


Melito,  84.     Of  Origen,  87.      Of 
Jerome,  91.    And  of  the  Talmud, 
94. 
Church  of  Christ,  its  nature  and  pro- 
gress, 235. 
Citations,  see  Quotations. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  his  testimony 
as  to  the  period  when  the  Gnostic 
heresy  prevailed,  282.   Thoroughly 
skilled  in  Oriental   learning,   283. 
Character  given   fo  him  by  Euse- 
bius,  305.     His  silence  respecting 
the  Oriental  philosophy,  ib. 
Clement  of  Rome,  cites  the  spurious 

Ezechiel,  31. 
Cocceius,  character  of,  as  a  critic,  469. 
491.      His  Hebrew  Lexicon    next 
in  value  to  that  of  Castell,  491 
His  translation  of  Isaiah,  i.  22.  ib. 
Colossians,    Epistle    to,    scope    and 
meaning  of  the  first  two  chapters  of, 
322—344. 
Conjecture,  Bochart  charged  with  an 
excess  in  the  use  of  it,  164.     J.  D. 
Michaelis'   conjectural  reading  of 
Deut.  VIII.  3.  16.      And  of  Isaiah 
XXV.  7.  512  s. 
Context^  use  of,   in  interpretation  of 

Parables,  241. 
Critici  Sarri,  comparison  between  it 

and  Poole's  Synopsis,  468 
Criticism,  of  the  O.  and  N  Testament, 
how   divided,  4.     Questions   relat- 
'  ing  to  the  Old  Testament  brought 
into  view  by  Higher  Criticism,  II. 
Questions  relating  to  the  New  Test , 
13     The  use  of  Higher  Criticism, 
26  s. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  character  of  hit 
Commentary  on  Isaiah,  449      Year 
of  his  death,  ib 
Daniel,  his  Book  originally  in  sepa- 
rate treatises,  26.    And  in  different 
dialects,  ib      The  Jews  have  diffe- 
rent opinions  of  its  value  and  au- 
thority, 30      Not    mentioned    by 
Philo,  58.     No    direct    quotation 
from  it  in  the  N-  T.,  102.    In  the 


Canon  of  Mellto,  85     And  in  that 
of  Joseph u«,  77    81      Where  and 
when  the  Sepiua^int  Version  of  his 
Book  was  publishec  j500. 
Dathe,  notice  of  bis  Latin  Version  of 
Isaiali,  477      And  of  his    Syriao 
Psalter.  .=.15 
David,  the  epithets  applied  to  him  by 
Philo,  56  s.    Inferiority  of  his  go- 
vernment t«»  that  of  Christ,  201. 
De  Dieu,  Louis,  character  of  his  me« 

thud  of  exposition,  467  s. 
Death,  differently  depicted  by  diffe- 
rent nations,  498.     See   Taste  of 
Death 
Dereser,  notice  of  his  translation  bf 

Isaiah  477. 
Descent,  of  Christ  iato  hell,  Bochart 

on,  160.  168. 
Deuteronomy,  the  epithet  applied  to 

it  by  Philo,  55.     See  Moses. 
Diffusii  eness^  Bochart  not  to  be  charge 

ed  with,  160 
Ddderleiii,  J   C,  notice  of  his  Latin 

Version  of  Isaiah,  477. 
Eastern,  what  nations  were  so  called 

by  the  Hebrews,  278. 
'?,/i^aicev  ^iBf.ot,  what  is  to  be  under- 
stood by  the  phrase,  73. 
Ecclesiasies,  not  cited  by  Josephus  nor 
Philo,  59.  81      But  by  Melito,  Ori- 
gen and  Jerome,  84.  87.  91. 
Ecclesiastical  History,  receives    im- 
portant accessions  from  Syriao  li- 
terature, 521. 
Edessa,  Juioh  of  see  Jacob. 
Egyptian   Christians,  their    opinions 
on  the  Canon,  46. 

Jews,  held  the  Apocrypha 

in  no  repute,  46.  Had  the  same 
Canon  as  the  Palestine  Jews,  41  ss. 
Sre  Canon. 
Eichfiorn,  opinion  of,  as  to  the  period 
when  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel  lived, 
413.  His  thetry  in  regard  to  the 
writings  of  Isaiah,  476.  His  trea- 
tise on  the  Canon  of  the  O.  T.,  17 
-^104.    Account  of  its  first  rnibli- 

ro 


554 


GENERAL  INPEX  OF  MATTERS. 


cation,  19.  Four  editions  of  his 
Introduction,  ib.  His  opinion  on 
the  use  of  the  Paragogic  Nun  of 
the  Preterit,  494. 

Ehazar,  whether  he  sent  to  Egypt  a 
Hebrew  MS.  for  forming  the  Sep- 
tuagint  Version,  47. 

Enoch,  Books  of,  cited  by  St.  Jude, 
31. 

Episcopacy,  Bochart's  letter  on,  122. 

Epistle  of  Aristeas ;  See  Septuagint. 

Ephrem  Synts,  when,  where,  and  by 
whom  his  Works  were  published, 
516.  487.  S.  E.  Asseman's  Latin 
translation  of  them  censured,  516. 
Commended  in  lofty  terms  by 
Greeks,  Latins,  Copts  and  Arme- 
nians, 527.  Entitled  by  the  Sy- 
rians Master  of  the  World,  ib.  His 
mode  of  interpretation  illustrated 
by  examples,  527  s.  Comments 
on  the  Syriac  Version,  and  not  on 
the  original  text,  527.  Character 
as  a  Commentator,  527.  454  s. 
Character  of  his  Commentary  on 
the  Syriac  Version  of  Isaiah,  454  s. 
Quotes  Rev.  of  St.  John,  523. 

Esseiies,  had  sacred  books,  60.  Whe- 
ther they  worshipped  angels,  335  s. 

Esther,  is  not  held  in  the  same  repute 
by  all  Jews,  30. 

Ethiopians,  their  division  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  89. 

Etymological  inte.rpr.  tation,  Bochart's 
overweening  atlachment  to,  165. 

Eunapius,  what  he  means  by  Chal- 
daic  philosophy,  310  s. 

Eusebius,  his  'TfrofAvrifxtTet.  tU  'Htntinv 
first  published  by  IVlontfau9on,  447. 
Character  of  this  work,  447—449. 

Exodus,  the  epithet  applied  to  it  by 
Philo,  55. 

Ezechiel,  abounds  in  Chaldaisms,  21. 
Not  certainly  included  in  the  Canon 
of  Philo,  59.  Not  cited  in  the  N. 
T.,  102.  Found  in  the  Canon  of 
Josephus,  71.  77.  And  of  Melito, 
S4.    And  of  Origen,  87.     And  of 


Jerome,  91.  And  of  the  Talmud, 
94.  The  Syriac  Version  accords 
with  the  Greek  more  frequently  in 
this,  than  in  the  other  books  of  the 
O.  T.,  506. 

Ezra,  not  cited  in  the  New  Testament, 
64  102.  Cited  by  Philo,  55.  Used 
by  Josephus,  80.  In  the  Canon  of 
Melito,  84.  Of  Origen,  87.  Of 
Jerome,  91.  And  of  the  Talmud, 
94. 

Fables,  how  different  from  parables, 
216  ss.  Classification  of,  219  s. 
Nature  of,  223.  Use  of,  proper, 
219.  221.     Utility  of,  232  s. 

Fathers,  after  Origen's  time,  until  the 
fifth  century,  almost  entirely  igno- 
rant of  the  Hebrew  text,  446  s. 
Their  opinion  on  the  number  pf 
the  Books  of  the  O.  T.,  70  s.  And 
on  the  sacred  books  of  the  Saddu- 
cees,  60  s.  And  on  the  Apocry- 
pha, 31. 

Firmilian,  testimony  of,  as  to  the 
date  of  the  Gnostic  heresy,  286  s. 

Forerivs,  notice  of  his  Commentary 
on  Isaiah,  467. 

Fox  and  trapes,  fable  of,  227. 

Franciscan  Friar,  anecdote  of,  133. 

Future  Paragogic,  more  common  in 
Arabic  than  in  Hebrew,  493. 

Gabriel  Shmiia ;  see  Sionita. 

Gamaliel,  Rabbi,  his  proof  of  the  re- 
surrection of  the  dead,  62. 

Gems,  of  Scripture,  158. 

Genesis;  see  Moses. 

Geography,  derives  important  aid  from 
Syriac  learning,  524.  Geographi- 
cal tables  of  the  Monophysite  and 
Nestorian'  Sees  and  Monasteries, 
ib.  Bochart's  errors  in,  ib.  And 
those  of  Cellarius,  ib.     See  Mabog. 

Gesenius,  W.,  hit  History  of  Intro- 
ductions to  the  Scriptures,  1 — 15. 
And  his  History  of  the  Interpreta- 
tion  of  the  prophet  laeiah,  401— 
479.  His  criticism  on  the  Hiero- 
zoicon  of  Bochart,  156. 


GENERAL  INDEX  OP  MATTERS. 


555 


GiU,  his  illustrations  of  the  phrase 

Tasle  of  Death,  498. 
'Gnoslics,  origin  of  the  name,  277. 

Opinion  of  Arnold  respecting  them, 

278.  Of    Moshelm   and   Brucker, 

279.  The  name  shewn  to  be  first 
used  in  the  Second  Century,  281. 
Testimony  of  Clemens  Alexandri- 
nus,  as  to  the  time  when  the  Gnos- 
tic heresy  prevailed,  282.  Of  He- 
gesippus,  284.  Of  Firmilian,  286, 
287.  Of  Tertullian,  291—293. 
Date  of  the  Gnostic  philosophy 
proved  not  to  be  so  early  as  the 
time  of  the  Apostles,  from  the  si- 
lence of  the  writers  of  the  First 
Century,  293.  Difficulty  of  ascer- 
taining the  real  opinions  of  the 
Onostics,  and  reasons  for  this,  302, 
303.  Their  tenets  supposed  by 
some  to  have  been  derived  from 
the  Jews,  304,  305.  By  others, 
from  the  Greeks,  305,  306.  Rigid 
in  their  lives,  372.  Cause  of  the 
occasional  resemblance  between 
their  language,  and  that  of  the  sa- 
cred writers,  385—387.  Their  sys- 
tem too  absurd,  and  too  refined,  to 
have  been  a  subject  of  discussion 
with  the  Apostles,  388—391.  That 
mode  of  interpretation  which  finds 
them  in  the  sacred  writings,  too 
laboured  and  artificial  to  be  true, 
391.  Their  doctrines  derived  from 
a  threefold  source,  394 — 396.  Ap- 
parently contradictory  statements 
of  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers 
on  this  subject,  reconciled,  396. 
The  origin  of  the  Gnostic  heresy 
to  be  traced  to  Egypt,  397.  The 
number  of  the  Gnostics  not  great, 
398.  Their  various  sects  more 
profitable  than  injurious  to  Chris- 
tianity, 399. 

Gradation,  of  fnture  rewards,  255. 
268. 

Grammar,  importance  of  its  know- 
ledge, 163.    TJiat  of  the  Hebrew. 


compared  with  the  Arabic  and  Ara- 
maean, 493.  Hebrew  Grammar 
illustrated  by  Syriac,  492.  And 
by  Arabic,  ib. 

Grammars,  the  best  Syriac,  notices 
of,  531. 

Grei^k  Version  of  the  O.  T. ;  see  Sep- 
tu'igint. 

Gregory  Barhebraeus ;  see  Ahidphara- 
gius, 

Grotius,  his  method  of  exposition, 
467. 

Habakkuk ;  see  Minor  Prophets. 

Haggai;  see  Minor  Prophets. 

Hammond,  Dr.,  undue  eagerness  of, 
to  find  traces  of  the  Gnostics  in  the 
N.  T.,  318, 

Han/ein,*  character  of  bis  Introduc- 
tion to  the  N.  T.,  13. 

Harduin;  see  Mabog. 

Hasseniamp,  points  out  an  error  of  J. 
D.  Michaelis,  523.  Writes  a  book 
against  bis  Introduction  to  the  N. 
T.,  ib.  Proposes  a  Collection  of 
Testimonies  from  the  Syriac  Fa- 
thers, iZ>.  Favourable  notice  of 
him  by  Michaelis,  ib. 

Hebraisms,  improper  application  of 
the  word,  497.  Treatise  on,  cited, 
501. 

Hebrew  Language,  the  Scriptures  of 
the  O.  T.  the  only  repository  of  it, 
151.  Importance  of  Syriac  for 
its  illustration,  486—490.  Exam- 
ples of  this,  490—492.  513  s.  526. 
Influence  of  the  Aramaean  on  the 
Hebrew,  495. 

Hebrew  Grammar,  illustrated  by  Sy- 
riac, 492—495.  The  Nun  Para- 
gogic  of  the  Preterit,  493.  Vowels 
and  diacritical  marks,  495.  Con- 
sonants, ib.  Illustration  from  the 
records  of  Palmyra,  493. 

He^esippus,  testimony  of,  as  to  the 
date  of  the  Gnostic  heresy,  284. 
When  he  lived,  i6.  Testimony  of 
Eusebius  to  his  character,  285.* 


566 


GENERAL  INDEX  OF  MATTERS. 


Heresies,  what  St.    Paul    means  by 

them,  288  s. 
Btrmas,  cites  the  Eldad  and  Medad, 

31. 
Hierapolis ;   sec  Mahog. 
Hierozoicon,  of  Bochart,  129  150  ss. 
Its  publication,  134.    Editions  of, 
157. 
History,  Ecclesiastical  and  Civil,  the 
great  light  shed  on  it  by  Syriac  li- 
terature, 517—522. 
Hoffmann,  A.   T.,  his  eminence  as  a 
Syriac  scholar,   531.     The  excel- 
lence of  his   Syriac  Grammar,  ib. 
His  brief  history    of  i^yriac  Lite- 
rature mentioned,  530.      His  re- 
mark on  the  Paragogic  Nun  of  the 
Preterit  in   Syriac,  494.     And   on 
the  matres  lectionis,  493. 
HoTmsel,  notice  of  his  work  on  Isai- 
ah, 478. 
Hosea  ;  see  Minor  Prophets. 
Houbigajit,  his  character  as  a  biblical 

critic,  472. 
Huet,  his  disputes  with  Bochart,  on  a 
passage    of   Origen,  136.      Fond- 
ness for  mythological  illustrations 
of  Scripture,   165.     Letter  to  Bo- 
chart, on  the  abuse   of  etymology, 
165.    Journey  to  Sweden,  124  ss. 
Origeniana,    128.      Effect  of   Bo- 
chart's  Sacred  Geography  on  him, 
120. 
Mug,  J.  L.,  character  of  his  Intro- 
duction to  the  N.  T.,  13. 
Hymenaeus,  not  among   heretics,  and 
why,  289.     Case  of,  considered, 
349. 
Inspiration,   the   manner    in    which 
Philo  expresses  himself,  in  regard 
to  it,  53.     See  Canonical. 
Interpretation,  rules   of,  exemplified, 

166. 
Introduction,  to  the  Bible,  meaning 
of,  3.  How  this  species  of  learning 
is  divided,  ib.  Proposed  fourfold 
division,  4  s.  Nature  of  a  practical 
Introduction,^.     Origin  of  this  de- 


partment of  learning,  7.    When  the 
name  Iniroduclion  was  first  used, 
ib.     First  important  steps  in  treat- 
ing this  subject,  8.     Other  nations 
far  behind  the  Germans,  in  their 
prosecution  of  it,  and  why,  14. 
Is'tiah  the  epithets  applied  to  him  by 
Philo,  56.      His  writings  found  in 
the  Canon  of  Philo,  Josephus,  Meli" 
to,  Origen,  Jerome,  and  the  Tal- 
mud, 19.  76.  84.   87.  9L  94.      Is 
quoted   in  the  N.   T.,   100  s.     His 
style,  21  s.     Extant  in  Greek,  at  a 
more  recent  date  than  the  books  of 
M  ses,  48,     Character  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  Version  of,  430  s.     Its  pe- 
cularities,  404 — 410.     Use  of  it  by 
the  N.  T.  writers,  410  s.     Charac- 
ter of  the  translation  of  Isaiah  by 
Symmachus,  411  s.     By  Aquila,  ib. 
By  Theodotion,  ib.     Antiquity  of 
the  Chaldee  Version  of,   defended? 
412—415.       its    unity,    415—417. 
Its  character,  417 — 426.    Charac- 
ter <»f  the  Syriac  Version  of,  426 — 
429.  431.     Whether  the  author  of 
this  version  was  a  Jew  or  a  Chris- 
tian, 429—431.  507.     Character  of 
Jerome's  Latin  Version  of  Isaiah^ 
431  s.     Age  of  the  Arabic  Version 
of  Saadias,  432.     Its  character.  433 
— 437,     Remains  of  the  Old  Latin 
Version  of  Isaiah,  438.     Its  charac- 
ter, 438  s.     Arabic  Version  of,  439. 
Age    of,    439  s.      Peculiarities  of, 
440  ss.     Its  external  character,  442 
— 445.    Observations  of  the  Fathers 
on    Isaiah,    before    Origen's   time, 
chiefly  doctrinal,  446.      Cbaracter 
of  the  work  of  Eusebius.  *r  To,uv»y«<- 
tet  tk   "Ho-aiav,    447—449.     The 
Commentary  of  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria, 449.     The  Commentaries  of 
Tiieodoret,  449  s.     Those  of  Pro- 
copius  of  Gaza,  450.      The  Com- 
mentary of  Jerome,  450  ss.     That 
of  Ephrem  Syrus  on   the   Syriac 
Version  of  Isaiah,  4-54  '.    Remarks 


GENERAL  INDEX  OF  MATTERS. 


557 


t)t  Jarchi  on  Is.  vi.  1—6.  wid  vii. 
1—9.,  457—459.  Of  Al)en  Kzra  on 
the  same,  459  s,  Cliaracler  and 
specimens  of  David  Kimchi's  Com- 
mentary on  Isaiah,  460—462.  Of 
Isaac  Abarbanel's,  i62 — 464.  Of 
Luther's,  465  s.  Of  Zuingle's 
and  Calvin's,  466  s.  Of  Varenius, 
469.  Of  Vitriiiga's,  470.  When 
the  dialects  were  fir=t  used  in  tlie 
interpretation  of  Isaiah,  471.  Cha- 
racter of  Bishop  Lowth's  work  on 
Isaiah,  472  s.  K"ppe's  edtiion  of 
it,  473.  Paulus'  Clavis,  473.  J. 
D.  Michaelis'  and  Moidenhauer's 
translations,  475.  •  Of  the  works  of 
Cube,  Kiagelius,  Seller  Holster 
and  Heiisler,  476.  Augusti's  trans- 
lation, ib.  Eicbhorn's  theory,  in 
regard  to  the  writings  of  Isaiah, 
476  s.  Notice  of  D*^reser's  transla- 
tion, 477.  Of  the  Latin  Versions 
ofDdderleinand  Dathe,i&.  Greve's 
work,  477.  The  works  of  Hohei- 
sel,  Scheliing,  Arnoldi,  Schleusner, 
and  Mossier,  478.  Schroder's  Mo- 
nographic on  Is.  III.  16  ss.,  479. 
Martini  on  Chap  liii.  ib.  Cha- 
racter of  Schnurrer  and  Aurivillius, 
•as  interpreters  of  Laiah,  479. 

Jofob  of  Edessa,  his  recension  of  the 
Syriac  version,  506.  When  intrp- 
duced,  ib. 

JaJm,  character  of  his  Introduction, 
11  s  His  opinion  on  the  time  of 
Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  413. 

Jarchi,  time  when  he  flourished,  456. 
character  of  his  Commentary,  456 
s.  His  remarks  on  Is.  vi.  1 — 6. 
and  vn.  1 — 9.,  457  ss. 

Jeremiah,  liis  writings  abound  in 
Chaldaisms,  21.  The  subscription 
to  bis  paK):|>bccies,  27.  Spoken  of 
with  great  respect,  by  Philo.  56. 
And  by  Josephus,  77.  Found  in 
the  Canon  of  Melito  84.  And  of 
Origen,  87.  And  of  Jerome,  91. 
Quoted  in  the  N.  T.,  and  how,  64. 


Placed  among  the  Prophets,  by  the 
Talmud,  94  logethi-r  with  the 
Lameiita(i.»nsconstiiutesone  book, 
Virmeyah.  88.  The  apocryphal 
wjirk  ascribed  to  him,  31.  The 
Epistle  which  bears  his  name  ne_ 
ver  was  a  part  ol  the  Jewish  Ca- 
non, 89. 

Jerome^  arranges  the  Scriptures  under 
three  h<  ads,  Law,  Prophets  and 
Hagiogra[iha,  90  s.  Enumerates 
the  books  of  Scripture,  ib.  The 
Apocrypha,  according  to  him,  93. 
Character  of  his  Commentary  on 
Isaiah  45(.»— 453. 

Jesus  SiracA,  translates  the  Sentences 
of  his  grandfather,  from  Hebrew 
into  Greek,  43.  His  periphrasis,  to 
designate  the  O.  I .,  jb. 

Jews,  after  the  Bab)  Ionian  captivity, 
divided  into  Egyptian  and  Pales- 
tine, 39.  Notwithstanding  their 
jealou^y,  their  religious  fellowship 
was  remarkable,  41.  They  had 
the  same  Canon,  41  ss.  Their  sa- 
cred books  in  ancient  times  were 
twenty -two,  70.  But  afterward 
twenty-toui,93.  When  they  agreed 
on  the  number  of  their  sacred 
books,  30.  Did  not  rank  the  Apo- 
crypha with  their  saered  books, 
35. 

Jtb,  known  to  Philo  and  the  writers 
oilheiN.T.,  82.  Among  the  sa- 
cred writings  in  the  time  of  Christ 
and  the  Apostles  ib.  Cited  by 
Philo,  57.  But  not  by  Josephus, 
81.  Placed  after  the  Song  of  So- 
lomon, by  Melito,  84.  After  Eze- 
chiel  by  Origen,  87.  After  the  Mi- 
nor Prophets,  by  Jerome,  91. 

JGcher,  hi?  deviaiion  from  the  proper 
orihograf-hy  of  a  Syrian  city,  526. 

Jofi ;  see  Yod. 

Joel,  an  original  poet.  22.  See  Minor 
Prophets. 

John,  the  Evangelist,  design  of  his 
Gospel,  a53— 355.     Difference  of 


558 


GENERAL  INDEX  OF  MATTERS. 


his  style  in  the  Apocalypse,  from 
that  of  his  other  writings,  373. 
His  Apocalypse  cited  by  Ephrem 
Syrus,  523. 

■John,  the  Baptist,  in   what  respect  in- 
ferior to  ihe  Apostle-?,  183  s. 

Jonah ;  see  Minor  Prophets. 

Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel,  his  Targura,date 
of,  412  ss.  The  work  of  one  au 
thor,  415  ss.  Its  character,  417  ss. 
Contains  views  similar  to  some  in 
the  New  Testament,  425.  Made 
in  general  from  a  Masoretic  text, 
425. 

Josephus,  a  contemporary  of  the 
Apostles,  64.  Attached  himself  to 
the  sect  of  the  Pharisees  in  his 
youth,  6§.  But  left  it  in  his  ma- 
turer  years,  ih.  A  priest,  and  a  sa- 
gacious investigator  of  truth,  65. 
Speaks  of  two  kinds  of  sacred 
writings  of  his  nation,  31  s.  His 
mode  of  designating  the  later  writ- 
ings, 31.  His  use  of  the  word  Ca 
non,  65.  Speaks  of  twenty-two 
sacred  books,  67.  And  gives  a  ge- 
neral enumeration  of  them,  71. 
Speaks  of  thirteen  prophets  and 
four  hagiographa,  71.  His  view 
of  the  Palestine  Canon,  64  ss. 
And  of  the  contents  of  it,  45. 
Writings  which  he  places  express- 
ly among  the  sacred  books,  76  ss. 
Writings  which  he  merely  cites, 
79  ss.  Writings  which  he  passes 
by  in  silence,  81.  His  celebrated 
passage  contra  Ap.,  on  the  credibi- 
lity of  the  Scriptures,  67.  Closes 
the  Canon  with  Artaxerxes  Longi- 
manus,  30.  And  why,  68  ss.  On 
the  books  of  Moses,  76.  Says  the 
book  of  Joshua  was  repositf^d  in 
the  temple,  78.  On  the  hooks  of 
Kings,  79.  Made  use  of  Ezra,  80. 
And  Neheraiah.  ib.  Designates  the 
contents  of  Esther,  i&.  Considers 
it  to  be  the  latest  book,  of  all  those 
in  the  O.  T.,  80.  69.     His  view  of 


the  book  of  Judges,  80.  And  of 
Ruth,  ib.  Considers  Isaiah  to  be 
among  the  sacred  books,  76  s.  And 
to  be  the  author  of  the  prophecies 
ascribed  to  him,  76.  ('alls  Jeremi- 
ah a  propnet,  77.  And  Ezechiel, 
ib.  And  Nalium,  78.  And  Jonah, 
ib.  Places  Ha-gai  among  the  sa- 
cred writitgs,  78.  And  calls  him 
and  Zechariah  prophets,  ib.  Plac- 
es Daniel  among  the  /•§*  ^g«;*^«- 
T«t,  77  Calls  the  Psalms  uiuvot  tie 
Tov  ei<5v,  and  places  them  among 
the  sacred  books,  79.  Does  not 
mention  Proverbs,  nor  Ecclesias- 
tes,  nor  the  Song  of  Solomon,  81. 
Makes  no  mention  of  Job,  ib. 
Makes  use  of  the  Hebrew  Books, 
in  composing  his  history,  73. 
Treats  minutely  of  the  Jewish 
sects,  295.  Makes  no  mention  of 
the  Gnostics,  ib.  A  passage  in  his 
works  corrupted,  335. 

Joshua,  enters  deeply  into  the  particu- 
lars of  the  most  ancient  Geography, 
25.  What  Philo  calls  this  book, 
55.  What  Josephus  says  of  it,  78. 
In  Philo's  Canon,  55.  And  in  that 
of  Josi-pbus,  78.  And  of  Melito 
and  Origen,  and  Jerome,  84.  86. 
90.  Placed  in  the  Canon  by  the 
Talmud.  94.  Cited  in  the  N.  T.,  98. 

Jude,  cites  the  Assumption  of  Moses 
and  the  Books  of  Enoch,  31. 

Judges,  its  provincialisms  and  barba- 
risms, 21.  Together  with  Ruth, 
one  book,  called  Shophetim,  86.  90. 
Not  cited  in  the  N.  T.,  64.  But 
referred  to,  102  Philo's  view  of 
it,  57.  Josephus',  80.  Quoted  by 
Philo  according  to  the  Septuagint, 
57.  The  Arabic  Version  of  Job  in 
the  Polyglots  is  made  from  the 
Syriac,  509.  His  book  in  the  Ca- 
non of  hilo,  59  And  of  Jose- 
phus, 83.  And  of  Melito,  84.  Of 
Origen,  86.  And  of  Jerome,  90. 
And  of  the  Talmud^  94. 


UE^EAAL   LNUHTL   OF   MATTERS. 


>5d 


Kimchi,  time  when  he  flourished, 
460.  Character  and  specimens  of 
his  Commentary  on  Isaiah,  460 — 
462. 

Kingdoniy  heavenly,  had  long  been 
expected  by  Christ's  hearers,  171. 
The  sources  of  this  expectation 
pointed  f)Ut  by  Josephus  and  Ta- 
citus, 172.  The  Messiah's  king- 
dom sometimes  called  the  King- 
dom of  the  Father,  and  why,  173, 
206.  Why  sometimes  called  the 
Kingdom,  174.  Erroneous  opi- 
nions prevalent,  in  Christ's  Jtime, 
respecting  it,  174.  Its  commence- 
ment, 180, 185  In  what  sense  it 
was  present  daring  John  the  Bap- 
tist's time,  and  Christ's  residence 
on  the  earth,  180,  181.  In  what 
passages  that  more  comprehensive 
sense  of  the  Kingdom  of  heaven 
obtains,  by  which  it  includes  the 
whole  of  Christ's  history,  183. 
Perpetuity  of  Christ's  Kingdom, 
186—196.  Its  extent,  197—199. 
Greatness  and  power  of  its  admi- 
nistration, 200—206.  Into  what 
periods  the  Kingdom  of  Christ, 
is  divided,  206.  To  what  the  term 
Kingdom  of  heaven  may  pecu- 
liarly be  applied,  208. 

Kings,  the  first  and  second  books, 
together  called  Samud,  87.  The 
third  and  fourth  called  Vammelech 
David,  ib.  The  first  book  called 
the  third,  by  Philo  and  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  67.  How  regarded  hy 
Philo,  58  s.  In  the  Canon  of  Jo- 
sephus, Melito,  Origen,  Jeiome, 
and  the  Talmud,  83.  84.  87.  90. 
94.     Cited  in  the  N.  T.,  98.  99. 

Kirschy  G.  JV.,  notice  of  his  Syriac 
Chrestomathy,  533.  It  is  derived 
chiefly  from  the  Chronicle  of  Gre- 
gory Abulpharagius,  ib. 

Knoes,  Guslavus,  notice  of  his  Syriac 
Chrestomathy,  520.    It  is  in  great 


part  derived  from  valuable  MSS., 
ib. 

Lamentations  of  Jeremiah,  appended 
to  the  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  59, 
87.  Not  s )  in  the  Taimud,  94. 
JNot  cited  by  Philo,  58.  Merely 
mentioned  by  Josephus  as  a  book 
composed  by  Jeremiah,  79.  But 
is  to  be  considered  a  part  of  his 
Canon,  83.  And  was  in  that  of 
Origen,  87.  And  the  Talmud,  94. 
Not  cited  in  the  N.  T.,  102. 

Lar'i'ner,  controversy  of,  with  Mi- 
chaelis,  respecting  a  certain  pas- 
sage in  Irenaeus,  281.  Unfavour- 
able notice  of  him  by  J.  D.  Mi- 
chael is,  523. 

Lattn  Language,  prbnunciation  of, 
113  s.  495. 

Le  Clerc,  notice  of  his  Commentary, 
472. 

Lee,  Prof.,  his  opinion  of  the  impor- 
tance of  the  Oriental  Languages, 
533. 

Leviticus ;  see  Moses. 

Lexicons,  the  best  Syriac,  532. 

Lizards,  species  of,  mentioned  by 
Moses,  153  s. 

Locusts  ;  160  s. 

Loudon,  Synod  of  the  Reformed 
Church  of  France  at,  129  s. 

Lowth,  Bishop,  character  of  his  work 
on  Isaiah,  472  s.  Koppe's  edition 
of  it,  473. 

Lucian,  silence  of.  in  regard  to  the 
Gnostics,  294. 

Lulher,  his  translation  of  Ephesians, 
n.  2.,  382.  When  his  translation 
of  Isaiah  appeared,  465.  Charac- 
ter of  his  Commentary  on  Isaiah^ 
465  s  His  excellencies  as  a  trans- 
lator, 512. 

Mnbos,  a  Syrian  city,  tfte  error  of 
Cellarius  in  regard  to  it,  524.  Sup- 
posed to  be  mentioned  by  Pliny, 
ib.  Harduin's  opinion  on  the 
name,  525.    Its  changes,  ih.    The 


360 


GENERAL  INDEX  Ol^  MATTEKS. 


same  as  Bambyce  and  Hierapolis, 
ib.  Its  orthography  decided  by  a 
referenee  to  the  Syriac,  ib. 

Lyra,  de;   see  Nicolaus  <ie  Lyra. 

Mclachi ;   see  Minor  Prophets, 

Martin^,  .lOtice  oi  his  work  on  Isai- 
ah, uii.  479. 

Matr'S  lectionis,  more  frequent  in 
modern,  than  in  ancient  Syriac, 
493 

Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  83  Lived 
in  the  second  century,  ib.  His  ce- 
lebrated Epistle  to  Oiiesiuiiis,  84. 
Illustration  of  it,  85.  Wrote  with- 
out accents  or  spiritus,  ib.  His  ar- 
rangement of  the  books  of  Scrip- 
ture, 84.  Omits  Nehemiah  and  Es- 
ther, 85.    Arrd  Malachi,  84 

Menenin  Agrippa,  bis  fable  of  the 
members  of  ihe  body,  2i6.  224. 
226  s. 

Methodists,  a  set  of  Romanist  dispu- 
tants so  called,  1 15. 

Micah  ;    see  Minor  Prophets. 

Michaelis,  J.  D..  devoted  his  chief 
attention  to  Hebrew  Philoloijy.  for 
ten  years,  at  GSttingen,  486.  His 
Criticisms  on  Is.  xiv.  23.  and  i. 
22.,  490—492.  On  xxv.  7.,  51 1  ss. 
On  the  phrase  Taste  of  Drath,  497 
ss.  (See  Taste  of  Death.)  On 
Deut.  VIII.  3  16.,  494  Oa  ii.  Cor 
XII.  7.,  499  ss.  His  notice  of  the 
Syriac  text  in  the  Polyglots,  507  ss 
Thinks  that  the  author  of  this  ver- 
sion was  a  Christian,  507.  His 
censure  of  Lardner,  5  >3.  Of  Bo- 
chart,  624  And  of  Gabriel  io- 
nitas,  509.  And  of  S.  E.  Ase  nan, 
516.  Favourable  notice  of  Has- 
sencamp,  V23     And  of  Cellarius, 

524.  His  notice  of  the  publica- 
tions of  the  Assemaiis,  516  s.  Of 
Dr.  BUsching's  Description  of  Asia, 

525.  Censure  of  the  Continuation 
of  the  Universal  History,  517. 
Notice  of  Dathe's  Syriac  Psalter, 
515.    Of  the  Chrpnicle  of  AbuN 


pharagius,  517—520?.    (See  AhuO 
pharagius.).  His  mention  of  the 
copy  of  this  work  proposed  by  Ba- 
ron von  Mtinchh«usen,  519  s.   And 
of  the  copy  made  by   Bruns,  520. 
His  account  of  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia.  as  a   Commentator,  529  s. 
And  of  Ephrem  Syrus  527  s.    Errs 
in  saying  that  Ephrem   did  not  re-  , 
gard  the   Revelation   of  St.  John 
as  authentic,  522.      CJorrects    his 
error,  522  s.     Notice  of  the  publi-     , 
cation  of  Ephrem's    works,   616. 
Collection   ot    Syriac  phrases,  to 
illustrate  the  N.  T  ,  496.     An  ac- 
count  of  his  Introduction  to  the 
O.  1.,  505.    Of  his  Curae  in  Versi- 
onem  Syriacam,  504.   Of  his  Trea- 
tise on  the  Use  of  the  Svriac  Lan- 
guage, 485.     Of  his  View    of  the 
means  foi  acquiring  a  knowledge 
of    the    Hebrew  Latjguagn,    455.    % 
Of  his   Introduction   to  the  N.  T., 
12.    Of  bis  Translation  of  Isaiah, 
476.    Of  his  Syriac  Grammar,  531. 
And    Syriac    Chrestomxthy,  532. 
Of  his  edition   of  Castells  ?^yriac 
Lexicon,  ib.    His  Treatise  o.\  the 
Use  of  (he  Syriac    Language,  481 
— 534.      (  See    Syriac   Language.  ) 
Date  of  his  death,  505. 
Michaelis,  J.      .,   value   of   his  He- 
brew Bible.  471  s. 

Chr.  Benedict,  his  Syriac 

Grammar  an  ongimtl  work,  531. 
His  conjectural  emendations  of  the 
Sv  riac  Version,  508. 
Mi  or  Prophets,  all  quoted  in  the  N. 
T  except  Obadiah.  Jonah,  Nahum 
and  Zephaiiiah,  102.  Called  the 
tirelve  in  the  Targum,  94,  Only 
Hoseaand  -Zechariah  are  cited  by 
Ph.lo.  56  Bui  he  virtu  dly  cites  all, 
59.  J  isephus  regards  them  as  one 
book,  78.  And  also  Melito.  84. 
And  Jerome,  91.  Origen  omits 
them  in  his  catalogue,  88.  The  fact 
accounted  for,  ih. 


GENERAL  liSDEX   OF   MATTERfe; 


561 


Minor  Prophets,  Hosea,  the  epithet  ap- 
plied byPhilo  to  his  Prophecies,  66. 
Called  by  Philo  a  prophet,  ib. 
Often  cited  in  the  N.  T.,  101. 

■■  '        Joel,  his  origiaality,  22. 

■■  JonaJi,  reference  to  his  narra- 
tive, in  the  New  Testament,  102. 
Called  a  prophet,  by  JosephuS;  78. 

'<■•"  ■""  Micah,  only  once  cited  in  the 
N.  T.,  101. 

Nahum,  called  a  prophet  by  Josephus, 
78. 

■  ■■  Habakkttk,  his  originality,  22. 

'"  '  ■  Haggai,  only  once  cited  in  the 
N.  T.,  101.  Josephus  calls  him  a 
Prophet,  78. 

Zechariah,    called    by  Philo 

companion  of  Moses,  56.  Called  a 
Prophet,  by  Josephus,  78. 

Malachi,  no  special  mention 

of  him  by  Philo,  Josephus,  Melito, 
Origen,  Jerome,  or  the  Talmud,  and 
why,  59.  Particularly  cited  in  the 
N.  T.,  101. 

Moldenhauer,  notice  of  his  Translation 
of  Isaiah,  475. 

Moral  fable,  nature  of,  220. 

Morin,  John,  objection  of,  to  the  sup- 
posed early  date  of  the  Chaldee 
Version,  412  s. 

Moses,  his  five  books  are  all  cited  in 
the  New  Testament,  97  s.  They 
were  in  the  Canon  of  Philo,  54. 
And  of  Josephus,  76.  And  Melito, 
84.  And  Origen,  86.  And  of 
Jerome,  90.  And  of  the  Tal- 
mud, 93  s.  They  are  called  by 
Josephus  £«/>«<  010KOI,  and  al  tav 
Itpuv  yp*<pcet  0i0Kii,  76.  Are  spoken 
of  in  very  high  terms  by  Pbiio,  54. 
And  called  by     m  hp«i  ^iShtt,  ib. 

'— —  his  book  Genesis  is  called  by 
Philo  tiffi  ypafxi,  55.  Exodus  is 
called  Up*  0i8\o(,  ib.  Leviticus, 
UfOf  Adyoc,  ib.  Numbers,  ItpsiritTov 
yp^ftut,  ib.  And  Deuteronomy, 
^piicrfAot  and  Up6(  Mya,  ib. 

Mossier,  notice  of  his  work  on  Isaiah; 
476 


Mosheini,  availed  himself  of  the  Edes- 
sene  Chronicle,  in  composing  his 
History,  521.  His  ignorance  of 
Syriac,  ib.  His  account  of  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia,  529.  His  vin- 
dication of  him,  530.  His  opinion 
respecting  the  Gnostics,  279.  His 
objection  to  the  testimony  of 
Hegesippus  concerning  them,  285. 
His  opinion  as  to  Simon  Magus,290. 

Mythical  fable,  nature  of,  220. 

Nahum ;  See  Minor  Prophets. 

Nantz,  edict  of,  135. 

Nehemiah,  was  called  the  second  book 
of  Ezra,  59.  Not  cited  in  the  N.  T., 
102.  Nor  by  Philo,  nor  Melito, 
58.  85.  Used  by  Josephus,  80. 
Found  in  the  Canon  of  OrigeD, 
Jerome,  and  the  Talmud,  87.  90.  94. 

Ntw  Testament,  refers  to  the  Old 
Testament  very  often,  yet  never 
enumerates  its  parts,  63.  Its  citations 
of  two  kinds,  64.  (See  Quotations.) 

Nicolaitans,  ought  not  to  be  called 
heretics,  and  why,  289. 

Nicolaus  de  Lyra,  year  of  his  death, 
464.     Notice  of  his  Postillae,  i6- 

Numbers ;  See  Moses. 

Nun,  Paragogic ;  See  Paragogic  Nun. 

Obadiah;  See  Minor  r.ophets. 

Obscurity,  occasionally  an  end  of 
parabolic  instruction,  234. 

Opitz,  his  Syriac  Grammar  highly 
commended  by  Hoffman,  531. 

Origen,  when  he  lived,  86  His  cele- 
brated passage  on  the  Canon,  86  s. 
Importance  of  it,  ib.  Illustration 
of  the  passage,  88  s.  His  ar- 
rangement of  the  Books  of  Scrip- 
ture, 86  s.  Why  h^  made  Ba- 
ruch  a  part  of  the  Canon,  88.  Se- 
parates the  books  of  Samuel  from 
the  bouks  of  Kings,  87.  Mentions 
Nehemiah  as  the  second  book  of 
Egra,  i6.  Mentions  Esther,  »&.  Had 
Jeremiah  in  his  Canon,  87.  Men- 
lions  Ezechiel,  ib.  Thinks  Jere- 
miah and  the  Lamentations  to  be 
one  book,  ib. 


I 


562 


GENEBAL   INDEX   OF   MATrJEKS. 


Oriental  Languages,  opinion  of  Pro- 
fessor Lee  of  Cambridge  on  their 
importance,  533.  A  knowledge  of 
them  essential  to  the  Biblical 
scholar,  533  s.  Example  of  the  ap- 
plication of  Syriac,  Arabic  and 
Rabbinic,  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  N.  T.,  497  s.  Of  Syriac,  to 
the  illustration  of  Hebrew  Gram- 
mar, 494.  Of  Syriac  and  Arabic, 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  511—514.  Importance 
of  Syriac,  in  General  History,  Ec- 
clesiastical History,  Geography, 
and  Biblical  Interpretation,  517 — 
630.  See  Syriac  Language,  Ara- 
maean Language,  Chaldee  Lan- 
guage. 

Oviparous  quadrupeds  of  Scripture, 
]53. 

Palmyra,  records  of;  See  Hebrew 
Grammar. 

Parable,  of  the  excuses,  248.  270  s, 
Father  and  two  sons,  229.  '244. 
246.  Fig  tree,  255.  Good  Sama- 
ritan, 243.  267.      Hidden  treasure, 

257.  261  s.  King  taking  account 
of  his  servants,  232.  Labourers  in 
the  vineyard,  249.  259  s.  Leaven, 
253.  255.  258  Marriage  supper, 
241.  245.  247.  267  s.  Mustard  seed, 
244.    253.     Pearl   of    great  price, 

258.  264.  Pharisee  and  Publican, 
225.  242  s.  272.  Prodigal  son,  250 
s.  262.  266.  270.  Rich  n:an,  225. 
231.  Rich  man  and  Lazarus,  253. 
268  s.  Talents,  246  s.  254.  Tares, 
259.272  s.  Ten  virgins,  254.256 
S.261.  Two  debtor>,  266.  Unjust 
judge,  264.  Unjust  steward,  265. 
Unmerciful  servant,  262.  Wed- 
ding garment,  239  s.  245  s.  Wick- 
ed husbandmen,  249. 

■  —  Origin  of   the  word,  215. 

Construction  of,  217  ss.  Distinct 
from  fables,  216  s.  Effect  of,  with 
regard  to  unbelieving  Jews,  235. 
With  reference  to  the  disciples, 
236  s      Supply  t-he  want  of  exam- 


ples, 230.  Use  of,  by  our  Saviouiv 
220  s.  As  proofs  of  doctrine,  266* 
s.     In  preaching,  272. 

Paragogic  Nun,  of  the  Future,  com 
mon  in  Arabic,  493.  Well  known 
in  Hebrew,  ib.  Of  the  Preterit, 
well  known  in  Syriac,  494.  Iho 
opinion  of  Eichhorn,  on  the  oc- 
currence of  it  in  the  Preterite  of 
the  Hebrew,  ib.  The  opinion  of 
Gesenius,  ib.  Hoffmann's  remark 
on  its  use  in  Syriac,  494.  Its  oc- 
currence in  the  Chaldee  Targums, 
ib.  The  inference  of  Michaelis, 
ib. 

Paul,  St.,  how  educated,  389. 

Paulm,  H.  E.  G.,  character  of  his 
edition  of  the  Arabic  Version  of 
Isaiah  by  Saadias  Gaon,433.  No- 
tice of  his  Clavis,  473  s. 

Peshito,  meaning  of  the  term,  426  s.. 
See  Syriac  version. 

Peter,  St.,  peculiarity  of  his  phraseo- 
logy in  the  second  Ch.  of  his  se- 
cond Epistle,  and  cause  of  it,  372 
s 

Phaleg,  Bochart's,  editions  of,  149.' 

Fhilo  of  Alexnndria,  when  he  lived, 
49.  Sent  to  Jerusalem,  to  present 
offerings  in  the  name  of  his  bre- 
thren, 41.  His  testimony,  on  the 
Canon  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews, 
49  ss.  Divides  the  O  T.  into  three 
parts,  44  s.  His  view  of  the  cano- 
nical books  of  the  O.  T.,  52  ss 
Writings  to  which  he  attributes  a 
divine  origin,  52 — 57-  Writings 
which  he  only  cites,  57  s.  Writ- 
ings of  which  he  makes  no  men- 
tion whatever,  58.  Calls  the  au- 
thors of  the  O.  T.  Prophets,  62. 
His  meaning  of  the  word,  53. 
His  view  of  the  Apocrypha  of  the 
O.  T.,  50  s.  He  does  riot  ailego- 
rize  them,  32.  60  s.  Does  not  even 
cite  them,  51.  What  books  are 
contained  in  his  Canon,  59.  He 
calls  Moses  a  Prophet,  54.  Re- 
gards him  asj  the  greatest  of  ^thf 


GENBKAli   INDEX   OP  MATTEKS. 


5tj3 


3?rophets,  id.  Speaks  of  each  of 
the  five  books  of  Moses,  54  s. 
Mentions  Joshua,  the  first  book  of 
Samuel,  and  Ezra,  55.  Cites  two 
of  the  Minor  Prophets,  66.  Calls 
Isaiah  the  ancient  Prophet,  ib.  Calls 
Jeremiah  a  Prophet,  ib.  Express- 
es himself  highly  of  Solomon,  67- 
Calls  David  a  Prophet,  56  s.  Eze- 
chiel  not  found  in  his  Canon,  59. 
Makes  no  mention  of  Daniel,  58. 
Uses  the  words  of  Job  xiv.  4.,  57 
Makes  no  mention  of  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  58.  Nor  Ecclesiastes, 
ib.  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon  sup- 
posed to  have  been  written  by 
him,  51.  His  silence  respecting 
the  Gnostics,  295.  Alleged  traces 
of  their  philosophy  in  his  writings, 
-297—302. 

JPhilosopky,  Oriental,  unknown  to 
the  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers, 
304.  Magian,  mentioned  by  Pliny, 
308.  And  what  he  meant  by  it, 
310.      Chaldaic,    meaning    of,    in 

'  Eunapius,  310  s.  Barbarian,  high- 
ly esteemed  by  some  of  the  an- 
cient philosophers,  312. 

Plants,  of  Scripture,  158. 

Pliny,  speaks  of  the  Magian  Philoso- 
phy, 308.  And  what  he  meant  by 
it,  310. 

Tococke,  his  edition  of  the  History 
of  the  Dynasties  by  Abulpharagius, 
518.  It  contains  the  Arabic  text, 
and  a  Latin  translation  by  the  edi- 
tor, ib. 

Foeiry,  no  models  of  it  in  Syriac, 
486. 

JPolyglot,  the  Arabic  Version  of  Job 
contained  in  the  Polyglots  is  made 
from  the  Syriac,  509.  The  Arabic 
Version  of  the  Psalms  in  the  Lon- 
don P.  is  from  the  Greek,  ib. 
Baumgarten's  error  on  this  sub- 
ject, ib.  The  Syriac  text  in  the 
Polyglots,  very  incorrect,  507. 
Causes  of  this,  508.     Christ.   Be- 


ned.  Michaelis'  conjectural  emen- 
dations of  it,  ib.  The  critical  va- 
lue of  Ephrem  Syrus,  in  correct- 
ing this  text,  508.  See  Syriac  Ver- 
sion, Jrabic  Version,  he 

Poole,  Matthew,  comparison  between 
his  Synopsis  and  the  Critici  Sacri, 
468. 

Prayer,  Lord's,  why  proper  to  be  us- 
ed in  our  own  day,  183  s. 

Preaching,  use  of  the  parables  in, 
269  ss.    Bochart's,  114  s.  119. 

Presbytery,  Bochart's  letter  on,  122  ss. 

Procopius,  of  Gaza,  character  and 
im|»ortance  of  his  commentary  on 
Isaiah,  450.  Age  in  which  he  liv- 
ed, ib. 

Prophecies,  concerning  Christ,  whei> 
they  may  be  said  to  have  their  ac- 
complishment, 183.  Prophecy  of 
Amos,  IX.  11  s.,  considered,  199  s. 
Character  of  the  prophetic  style, 
372  s.  The  Prophecy  of  Isaiah, 
XXV.  6 — 8,  applied  to  Christ,  513  s. 

Propltet,  Philo's  use  of  the  word,  53. 
Alleged  to  be  sometimes  the  title  of 
a  writer  in  general,  82.  The  as- 
sertion doubted,  ib.  Meaning  of 
the  words  j^^^j  and  Te^o^hntc,  30, 

•T 

82.  The  Talmud  enumerates  five 
books  of  Prophets,  94.  Josephus, 
thirteen,  81,  Jerome,  eight,  93. 
The  twelve  Minor  Prophets,  one 
book,  59.  These  are  not  mention- 
ed in  the  Canon  of  Origen,  88. 

Proverbs,  in  the  Canon  of  the  Tal- 
mud, 94.  Not  mentioned  by  Jose- 
phus, 81.  But  by  Philo,  and  to  be 
placed  in  his  Canon,  57.  And  in 
that  of  Melito,  Origen  and  Jerome. 
84.  87.  91.  Solomon  is  the  author 
of  them,  according  to  Philo,  57. 
Cited  in  the  N.  T.,  100. 

Psalms,  very  often  cited  in  the  N. 
T.,  99.  100.  For  what  purpose, 
103.  Called  by  Josephus  Psalms 
of  David,  79.  Very  often  quoted 
by  Philo,  56.    Tn  the  Canon  of  the 


5(34 


GEINEKAL    IMJE.V    (>F    MATTERS. 


Talmud,  Philo,  Joseplius,  Origen, 
Melito  and  Jerome,  'M.  59.  83.  84. 
87.  91. 

Prepositions,  Greek,  frequently  of  no 
force  in  composition,  288. 

Qimtremdre,  his  Syriac  labours  and 
proposed  Lexicon,  532. 

^uotatio7is,  from  the  Old  Testament 
found  in  the  New  T  ,  tabular  view 
of,  97—101.  Of  two  kinds,  103. 
64.  The  books  of  Moses,  Isaiah, 
and  Jeremiah,  and  the  Psalms,  cit- 
ed for  the  establishment  of  reli- 
gious truths,  64.  103.  What  books 
of  the  O  T.  are  never  cited  in  the 
New  Testament,  64.  What  books 
are  cited,  and  where,  97 — 101. 
Citations  from  the  Psalms  most 
frequent,  99  s.  Only  one  direct 
ijuotation  in  the  N.  T.  from  Joshua, 
98.  And  only  one  from  Micah  and 
Haggai,  101.  The  best  works  on 
the  subject  of  Quotations  from  the 
O.  T.  in  the  N.  T.,  recommended, 
102.  103  s. 

Rabbins,  character  of,  as  expositors, 
456.  Application  of  their  writings 
to  the  interpretation  of  the  N.  T., 
498. 

Rational  fable,  220.  231. 

Ravens,  curious  disquisition,  164. 

Reformed  Churches  of  France,  dis- 
putes of,  with  the  Romanists,  115. 
Troubles  of,  129  s.  134  ss. 

Regal  Authority,  Bochart's  letter  on, 
123. 

Resurrection^  Christ's  proof  of,  from 
the  books  of  Moses,  no  argument 
that  the  Sadducees  received  these 
books  and  none  else,  62.  Rabbi 
Gamaliel's  proof  of  it  from  the  Pro- 
phets and  the  Hagiographa,  without 
objections  from  the  Sadducees,  ib. 

Rome,  the  special  seat  of  Syriac  learn- 
ing, and  why,  488.  Efforts  of  the 
See  of,  to  gain  the  Syrian  Church,  i/>. 

RosenmUUer,  E.  F.  C,  character  of 
bis  comraentaryj  on  Isaiah,  474  s. 


His  edition  of  the  Hierozoieon  oi 
Bochatt,  157. 

Rvfjin,.\\\s  translation  of  a  phrase  in 
thf  Canon  of  Melito,  85,  His  La- 
tin translation  of  the  eel.  brated 
passage  of  Origen  on  ihe  Canon, 
has  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets  af- 
ter the  Song  of  Solomon,  88. 

Ruth,  an  appendix  to  the  book  of 
Judges,  59.  Not  cited  by  Philo, 
58  In  the  Canon  of  the  Talmud, 
94.  Cited  by  Josephus,  80.  In 
the  Canon  of  Melito,  Origen,  and 
Jerome,  84  86.90. 

Saadias,  Rabbi,  works  of,  432.  When 
he  flourished,  ib.  Character  of  his 
Arabic  Version  of  Tsaiah,433 — 437. 

Salomn,  Ben  Melech,  notice  of  his 
Michlal  Jophi,  464. 

Samaritans,  received  the  Pentateuch 
only,  63. 

Samuel,  the  books  of,  together  with 
the  books  of  Kings,  called  by  Meli- 
to :  the  four  books  of  Kings,  84. 
Origen  separates  them,  86  s.  Used 
by  Josephus,  80.  The  first  book, 
called  by  Philo  :  the  first  book  of 
Kings,  55  The  second  book,  re- 
ceived by  Philo,  58  s. 

Sanctius,  Caspar,  notice  of  his  com- 
mentary, 467. 

Scandalize,  the  use  of  the  word  in  the 
N.  T.  explained  by  the  aid  of 
Syriac,  499  ss. 

Schaaf,  C,  his  Syriac  Lexicon  re- 
commended, 532. 

SchelJing,  notice  of  his  work  on  Isaiah, 
478.  ^ 

Schleusner,  notice  of  his  work  on 
Isaiah,  478. 

Schmidt,  J.  C.  C,  character  of  his  in. 
troduction  to  the  N.  T.,  13. 

Sebastian,  notice  of,  469. 

Schnvrrer,  character  of,  as  an  inter- 
preter of  Isaiah,  479. 

Schroder,  character  of  his  Mono- 
graphic on  Isaiah,  tri.  36  ss.- 
479. 


G^GNEBAL   INDEX   OP  MATTERS. 


5^ 


Schultens,  his  predilection  for  Arabic, 
486. 

Sender,  opinion  of,  in  regard  to  the 
design  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  354  s. 

Sermons,  Bochart's,  on  Genesis,  1 18  s. 
139. 

Septuas^inl  Version,  its  origin,  37. 
Books  of  Scripture  which  it  con- 
tained, 49  ss.  It  was  gradually 
formed,  at  different  times,  and  by 
different  persons,  47  The  story 
of  Aristeas,  respecting  its  formation, 
ib.  Reposited  in  the  Alexandrian 
Library,  48.  Its  general  authority 
in  Egypt,  and  the  cause  of  this,  49. 
Philo's  account  of  it,  62  ss  Jose- 
phus'  account  of  it,  64  ss.  Its 
version  <»f  Daniel,  when  and  where 
published,  500.  Its  agreement  with 
the  Syriac  Version,  506.  This 
fact  accounted  for,  ib.  Accords 
with  the  Syriac  more  frequently  in 
Ezechiel,  than  in  the  other  books, 
506.  Its  agreement  with  the  Syriac, 
in  Proverbs,  examined  by  Dr. 
Pathe,  507.  His  opinion  of  the 
cause  of  this  agreement,  ih.  Its  ac- 
cordance with  the  Targum,  in  Pro- 
verbs, 506  s. 

Simon,  Richard,  character  of,  8  s. 
His  opponents,  9.  Thinks  a  Jew 
was  the  author  of  the  Syriac  Ver- 
sion of  the  O.  T.,  507. 

Simon  Ma^s,  not  to  be  classed  among 
heretics,  289—291. 

Sionita,  Gabriel,  censured  for  his 
loose  translation  of  the  Syriac  text 
in  the  Polyglots,  510.  Many  of  his 
errors  corrected  by  Casteli,  510. 

Sixtus  Sinensig,  the  last  edition  of  his 
Bibliotheca  Sancfa,  7. 

Song  of  Solomon,  forbidden  to  be  read 
in  the  Synagogues,  35.  Not  cited 
in  the  N.  T.,  nor  by  Philo,  nor 
Josephus,  J02.  58.  81.  But  in  the 
Canon  of  the  Talmud,  and  Melito, 
and  Origen,  and  Jerome,  94.  84.  87. 


Slcsichorus,  fable  of  the  Horse  and 
the  Stag,  224.  226. 

Symmachns,  character  of  his  version 
of  Isaiah,  411  s. 

Syriac  Version,  of  the  0.  T.,  an  ac- 
count of  it,  505  ss.  The  religion 
and  nation  of  the  author,  unsettled, 
507.  The  different  opinions  ex- 
pr-'ssed  on  the  subject,  by  Kirscb, 
Simon,  Dathe,  Bertholdt,  Michae- 
lis  and  Gesenius,  ib.  Not  the  work 
of  a  single  translator,  ib.  The 
Latin  version  of  it  in  the  Poly- 
glots, not  to  be  trusted,  510.  Cha- 
racter of  its  text  in  the  Polyglots, 
507  s.  Conjectural  emendations 
of  it,  by  Chr.  Ben  Michaelis,  508. 
The  various  readings  of  it  in  the 
sixth  volume  of  the  London  Poly- 
glot, recommended,  ih.  The  va- 
lue of  Ephrem's  works,  in  its  emen- 
dation, 509.  Translated  from  the 
Hebrew,  505.  The  testimony  of 
Abulpharagius  on  this  subject,  ex- 
press, ih.  Its  agreement  with  the 
Septiiagint  version,  506.  (See  Sep- 
iuasint.)  Often  differs  from  the 
Septuagint,  505.  The  coinciden- 
ces of  the  Syriac  and  the  Greek 
Version,  ascribed  in  part  to  Jacob 
of  Edessa,  506.  The  value  of  the 
Syriac  Version,  critical  and  exege- 
tical,  510  ss.  Exampl-e  of  its  exe- 
getical  use,  511  ss.  Ephrem  Syrus 
wrote  his  Commentary,  not  on  the 
Hebrew  text,  but  on  this  version, 
527. 

of  Isaiah,    characte 

ristics  of,  427  ss.  Made  by  a  Chris- 
tian, 429  3.  Varies  from  the  Ma- 
soretic  text,  without  improving  it, 
431. 

Language,    together     with 


the  other  Oriental  languages  con- 
tains treasures  innumerable,  534. 
Numerous  valuable  works  extant 
in  it,  .504.  516  s.  The  Chroni- 
cle of  Abulpharagius,  518.    fSefe 


^5m 


GENERAL  INDEX  OF  MATTERS. 


Abulpharagius.)  The  Worlds  of 
Ephrem  Syrus,  516.  (See  Ephrem 
Syrus.)  The  compilations  of  the 
Assemans,  516.  (See  Assemnn,  J. 
S,  and  S.  E,)  And  a  complete 
Version  of  the  Bible,  and  of  the 
Apocrypha,  503.  Importance  of 
the  Version  of  the  O.  T  ,  505. 
(See  Sj/riac  Version.)  Far  more 
books  of  every  kind  extant  in  it 
than  in  Chaldee,  489.  These  use- 
ful books  an  inducement  to  its  stu- 
dy, 503.  Tn  atise  on  its  Uteralure 
by  Gaab,  503  Useful  in  illustrat- 
ing Profane  History,  517  And 
Ecclesiastical  History,  521  s.  And 
Geography,  524  ss.  And  the  He- 
brew Language,  489  ss.  And  the 
Interpretation  of  Scripture,  527  ss. 
The  publications  in  it  supplied 
Bayer  with  the  most  important  ma- 
terials of  his  Historia  Osrofthna, 
517.  Greatly  aided  Beausobre,  in 
his  History  of  Manes,  521.  And 
BQsching,  in  hi?  Description  of 
Asia,  525.  Aud  Mosheim,  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  History,  521.  Pos- 
sesses resources. for  Ecclesiastical 
History,  not  yet  used,  ib.  And 
may  shed  new  lijrht  on  the  Histo- 
ry of  Polemics,  ib.  Example  of 
its  illnstrating  the  history  of 
the  Canon,  522.  Example  of 
its  illustrating  Geography,  525. 
(See  Mabog.)  Less  used  than 
Chaldee  and  Arabic,  for  the  illus- 
tration of  the  Hebrew  language, 
485.  Books  in  Syriac,  not  read 
by  the  Jews,  and  why,  486.  Af 
fords  more  for  the  illustration  of 
the  Hebrew,  than  can  be  derived 
from  Chaldee,  489.  Its  elucida- 
tions derived  from  a  rich  vocabu- 
lary, 487.  Their  CfTlninfy,  489. 
Illustrates  Hebrew  Grammar,  492 
ss.  C.  B  Michaelis'  use  of  it,  for 
this  purpose,  495.     Its  illustration 


of  thematreslectionis,493.  Hoff« 
mann's  remark  on  this,  ib.  Its  il- 
lustration of  the  Nun  Paragogic  of 
the  Preterit,  494.  The  views  of 
Michae'is,  Eichhorn  and  Geseuius 
on  tills  subject,  ib.  More  useful 
than  Arabic,  in  Illustrating  the 
vowels  and  diacritical  marks,  495. 
Cause  of  this,  ih.  Illustrates  the 
phraseology  of  the  N  T.,  496.  J. 
D.  Michaelis'  collection  of  Syriac 
phrases  for  this  purpose,  ib.  Ex* 
amples  of  this  source  of  interpre- 
tation, 497  ss.  (See  Taste  of 
Death.)  A  motive  to  the  study  of 
the  Syriac  language,  from  the  new 
light  afforded  by  it,  486.  Beauty 
and  Poetry  do  not  enter  into  it? 
commendation,  ib.  Study  of,  lit- 
tle attended  to  in  Europe,  until  the 
commencemeut  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  531.  Pursued  with  dili- 
gence at  Rome,  and  why,  488.  Not 
pursued  there  with  a  view  to  the  il- 
lustration of  the  Hebrew,  488  s. 
Lardner's  ignorance  of  the  lan- 
guage, 522.  And  Mosheim's,  521. 
A  proper  knowledge  of  it  not  to 
be  acquired  from  the  Syriac  xet- 
sion  of  the  N  T.,  and  why,  486  e. 
The  use'  of  the  Syriac  version  of 
the  O.  T.,  most  important,  487. 
Notices  of  the  best  elementary 
works  for  the  study  of  it,  531  ss. 

Talmud,  date  of  its  compilation,  93. 
Its  view  of  the  Canon  of  the  O. 
T  ,  93  s.  Reckons  twenty-four 
books,  93.  Divides  them  into  three 
part,  s94.'  Enumerates  eight  Pro- 
phets, and  nine  Hagiographa,  ib. 
Considers  Ruth  a  distinct  book,  ih. 
Names  Esther,  ib  Its  quibble  res- 
pecting Yod,  93.  The  argument  of 
Rabbi  Gamaliel,  on  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  62. 

Tanchum  of  Jerusalem,  notice  of  his 


GEIv'ESAL    INPEX  OF  IJIATTEIfS. 


mi 


commentary    on    the     Prophets, 
464. 

Targum,  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uszid; 
See  Jonathan,  Ben  Uzziel. 

— — — —  of  Jerusalem ;   494. 

'■  of  Pseudo-Jonathan,  con- 
tains the  tradition  of  Jannes  and 
Jambres,  74. 

Taste  of  Death,  enumeration  of  the 
passages  of  the  N.  T.,  in  which 
the  phrase ^ occurs,  497.  Loose  in- 
terpretations of  it,  ib.  Found  no- 
where in  the  O.  T.,  ib.  Illustrated 
by  the  Syriac,  ib.  And  by  the 
Arabic,  498.  The  phrase  used  by 
the  Rabbins,  ib.  Proofs  of  this, 
498  s. 

Temple  Library,  traces  of  its  exis- 
tence before  the  Babylonian  cap^ 
tivity,  29.  And  after  the  captivity, 
ib. 

Temple  of  Jerusahm^kis  destruction 
not  connected  by  the  Jews,  with 
the  commencement  of  Messiah's 
kingdom,  174  s. 

TertuUian,  his  evidence  in  regard  to 
Simon  Magus,  290.  His  testimony 
respecting  the  date  of  the  Gnostic 
heresy,  291  ss.  Respecting  the 
source  of  its  tenets,  316.  What  he 
means  by  haereticonim  patjuar- 
chae  philosophi,  397. 

Theodoret,  character  of  his  com- 
mentary on  Isaiah,  449  s.  Year  of 
his  death,  449. 

Tkeodotian,  character  of  his  Version 
of  Isaiah,  41 1  s. 

Timothy,  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to,  why 
rejected  by  the  Gnostics,  317. 
Illustration  of  i  Tim.  vi.,  344 — 
852. 


Therapeutae,  their  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament,  60.  What  books  of 
Scripture  they  used,  45. 

Tittmann,  C.  C,  mistake  of,  in  at- 
tributing a  certain  passage  of  Augus- 
tine to  Atto,  338. 

Tychsen,  O.  G.,  notice  of  his  Elemen- 
tale  Syriacum,  633.  Eichhorn's 
commendation  of  it,  ib. 

Universal  History,  the  Continuation 
of  it  censured  by  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
517. 

Varenius,  Augustus,  character  of  his 
ct  nimentary  on  Isaiah,  469.  Year 
of  his  death,  ib. 

Vatican,  contains  a  MS.  of  the  Chro- 
nicle of  Abuiphaiagius,  519. 

Vav  and  Yod,  the  rule  in  Syriac  re- 
specting them,  493. 

Verses,  Latin,  a  singular  description 
of,  112. 

Vitringa,  character  of  his  commentary 
on  Isaiah,  470. 

Vossius,  Isaac,  objection  of,  to  the 
supposed  early  date  of  the  Chaldee 
Version,  412  s. 

Wetstein,  his  extracts  from  the  Rab- 
binical writings,  in  relation  to  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven,  of  no  weight, 
171  s. 

Yod,  the  quibble  of  the  Talmud  in 
regard  to  it,  93.  Rule  in  Syriac, 
respecting  Yod  and  Vav,  493. 

Zechariah ;  See  Minor  Priphets. 

Zephaniah ;  See  Minor  Prophets. 

Zobah,  errors  in  regard  to  the  region 
so  called,  526.  JScher's  orthogra- 
phy of  the  word,  ib.  The  word 
illustrated  by  the  use  of  Syriac. 

Zwingle,  character  of  his  commentary 

on  Isaiah,  466  s. 


% 


ERRATA^ 


fage. 

30 

read        . 

«^5I        •  ' 

45.    last  line 

5.29; 

J  55.    1.3.      . 

ItpaH  ypa(pa. 

107.  note,  1.  7.     . 

stupendam 

last  line 

■ 

junctara 

118. 1. 20.             .        . 

varied 

119.  1.  13.             .        .         . 



unction 

note,  1.  3.      . 

Rothomagcnsi 

120.  note,  1.1.      . 



trfaXiiara 

121. 1.  next  to  the  last. 



ceclesiasticis 



Cadomi 

149.1.3.      . 

the  modem  travelr- 

154.  1.  7 

HDZ^Jn 

162.1.21 



or 

164.  note,  1.  15.    . 



allegorical 

166.  notes,  1. 15. 

sufficiently 

168. 1.  13.      .        .        . 



Rom.  X.  6.  7. 

178.  notes,     .        .        . 

•      Drn 

205.1.28.     . 

the  proclamation 

206.1.7. 

gently  and  by  degrees^ 

245.  note,  1.  8.       . 

%• 

earum 

246.  note,  1.  4.       . 

fO)5  ov 

258.  note,  1.  24.      . 

p.  262. 

note,  1.  26.      . 

p.  253. 

note,  1.  27.      . 

p.  255. 

328.  note,  1.  9.  10. 

.        dele 

rb 

417.  1.  5.  from  the  last.   . 

read 

perception 

503.1.1. 

forbad 

508.1.9. 

not  at  all 

516.1.21.      . 

.        dele 

other 

I  In  the  Greek  type,  elsewhere,  over  the  final  syllable  of  a  separate  word,  or  of  the 
last  word  in  a  distinct  phrase,  the  grave  accent  is  sometimes  found,  instead  of  the 
acutr.  An  accent  is  often  placed  over  thejirst  vowel  of  a  diphthong,  instead  of  the 
second.  And  over  the  final  syllable  of  a  word,  when  followed  by  another  in  connex- 
ion with  it,  an  acute  accent  sometimes  occurs,  irtstead  of  a  grave. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO-^     202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


BECEIVED 


SEP     5198{ 


CIRCULATION  DIW^ 


APR  0  5  199  3 


mumm-i 


2 '90 


APR  t  1  199i 


Airromsrmc  jiji\ 


Q^M 


FORM  NO.  DD6, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


ms 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


coEEfiMoaaa 


2SZ  73        ^f 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


^']' 


